International News
See other International News Articles
Title: (UN) Court tells France to pay damages to Somali pirates
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30326397
Published: Dec 6, 2014
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2014-12-06 07:51:46 by out damned spot
Keywords: France, UN, Pirates
Views: 4731
Comments: 29
The European Court of Human Rights says France violated the rights of Somali pirates who had attacked French ships and has ordered compensation for them over judicial delays. The nine Somali pirates should get thousands of euros because they were not immediately brought before a French judge, the court ruled. One is to get 9,000 euros (£7,000) and the others sums of up to 7,000 euros. The judges faulted France for keeping them in custody for an extra 48 hours. The pirates had held French citizens hostage after seizing a French-flagged cruise ship and a French yacht in 2008. The French military captured the pirates on the Somali coast in two operations, after the hostages had been released for ransoms of $2.1m (£1.3m) and $2m. Indian Ocean shipping has been plagued by pirate gangs operating off Somalia in recent years, but international naval action in the region has sharply reduced the attacks. Days in custody Before transferring the pirates to France, the authorities held one group for four days and the others for six days and 16 hours. But the extra 48 hours of custody on French soil violated the pirates' right to liberty and security under the European Convention on Human Rights, the court ruled. The convention's Article 5.3 "was not designed to give the authorities the opportunity to intensify their investigations for the purpose of bringing formal charges against the suspects", a court statement said. The judges argued that the time between their arrest and transfer to France was already enough for France to draw up charges, instead of delaying for another 48 hours. Court judgements are binding on signatories to the convention. The judges did not challenge France's right to arrest the pirates inside Somali territory, under UN anti-piracy rules.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
You really can't make this stuff up.
The pirates should have been shot on sight, problem solved.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
And then onto "addressing" 'The European Kangaroo Court of Human Rights.'
That's mighty white of them.
Since when do pirates have ANY "rights"?? What next? Murderers awarded cash from the murdered victims' families over "emotional distress"?? If the UN is going to order mankind to play by Satan Rules, why shouldn't the UN and all its subversive off-shoots be considered "Pirates of Justice"??
This sure was a stupid decision by the court considering they are holding firm on no homo marriages and the right for countries to ban certain muzzy stuff like burkas.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
The Court is broken down into different groups of judges so you can't really say they "ALL" agreed on this decision.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/005.htm Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14 Rome, 4.XI.1950 Article 5 – Right to liberty and security
One is to get 9,000 euros (£7,000) and the others sums of up to 7,000 euros. Well they could have thrown the pirates overboard. Problem solved. Sorta a "swim to justice."
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
NOTE: This judgment is available only in FRENCH. This is an UNOFFICIAL translation of an excerpt from the judgment which is a 42 page PDF. AFFAIRE HASSAN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE, Requêtes nos 46695/10 et 54588/10, European Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section, Strasbourg, 4 December 2014 IV. ON THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A. Damage 114. The applicants Yacoub Mohammed Hassan and Sheik Nour Jama Mohamoud (application no. 46695/10) ask 15,000 EUR each for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed (application no. 54588/10) claimed 6,000 EUR to this title. It requires in addition 2,000 EUR for material damage. 115. The Government proposed to allocate a sum to the applicants for moral prejudice: 1,500 EUR to Mr. Yacoub Mohammed Hassan, 1,500 EUR to Mr. Sheikh Nour Jama Mohamoud and 3,000 EUR to Mr. Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed. HASSAN and Others v. FRANCE 39 116. The Court sees no causal link between the breach of article 5 §§ 1 and 3 and the material damage which the applicant Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed request repair. It therefore rejects this part of its claims. She on the other hand, considers it appropriate to give a sum to each of the claimants for moral prejudice, it fixed at 5,000 EUR. B. Costs and expenses 117. The applicant Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed (application no. 54588/10) claimed 7,272.46 EUR in reimbursement of his costs of representation before the Court. It produces a note of fees from his lawyer dated 31 August 2012 and relating to this amount. The other applicants do not formulate requests for expenses and costs. 118. Noting that it is justified by the production of an invoice of honorary, the Government proposes to do right at the request of Mr. Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed. 119. According to the jurisprudence of the Court, a claimant cannot obtain the reimbursement of his costs and expenses only to the extent where there are established their reality, their necessity and the reasonableness of their rates. In the present case, in view of the documents in its possession, of its jurisprudence and the position of the Government, the Court decided to make fully right to the request of the applicant Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed. It allocates accordingly 7,272.46 EUR for costs and expenses. Default interest 120. The Court considers it appropriate to base the default interest rate on the interest rate on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points . FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Decides to join the applications 46695/10 and 54588/10 our ; 2. Declares the application admissible No. 46695/10 ; 3. Declares the Application No. 54588/10 admissible as to the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 , 3 and 4 of the Convention and inadmissible for the remainder ; 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention; 5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; 40 HASSAN AND OTHERS v. FRANCE 6. Holds the case of Application No. 54588/10 , there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; 7. Holds ii) Mr. Ahmed Guelleh Abdulhai (application no 54588/10 ), 7,272.46 EUR (seven thousand two hundred seventy-two euros and forty-six cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable to tax by the applicant, for costs and expenses ; b) that from the expiry of that period until settlement, these amounts shall be payable on simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the period plus three percentage points; 8. Rejects just satisfaction to the remainder. Done in French, and notified in writing on 4 December 2014 pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Regulation. Claudia Westerdiek Mark Villiger
That is exactly what will happen in the future. This ruling is absurd. What rights???
No homo marriage in Europe?? Wow. Even they know it's...FAKE. Even they've banned Burkas as well?? Yeah, the pirates rewarded damages on a technicality is utter liberal insanity.
Aaaah....Perhaps that particular group of judges was probably bribed with Muzzie money, were symps OR actual Muzzies.
as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14 Rome, 4.XI.1950 Article 5 – Right to liberty and security... So what position are you taking here? Does "right to liberty and security" apply to...Pirates...mass murderers...rapists...butchers without exception?
Ha -- yeah. I believe that kind of "justice" is more than a fair resolution. Pirates have historically ALWAYS known the mortal risk and penalty of their endeavor should they be caught.
Only 18 countries (or parts thereof) around the world allow it. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled there is no "RIGHT" for homos to get married, they are leaving it up to the individual country. There was a push for it to be "Dictated to be legal" throughout Europe but the court shot it down. The chart breaking down what the colors meant wouldn't come over but I bet you can guess that the dark blue means "ALLOWS" and the Grey means "Doesn't Allow". Check this out its an article on one of their rulings........ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/european-court-gay-marriage-is-not-a-human- right
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
It looks he would apply them to blacks engaged in crime against whites, when the whites resist being crime victims. Whites seem to have no similar rights under his doctrine, only the obligation to be the victim.
I am taking the position of what the agreed upon applicable law says, as properly applied. The alleged pirates were brought before the French justice system in Europe. The French made themselves subject to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14, Rome, 4 XI. 1950 (Rome Convention). The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this convention. There is no exception for accused Pirates (or accused rapists or butchers). Every accused, without exception, falls under that law. The EHRC proceedings were held in Strasbourg, France. When an anonymous star chamber gets to decide who may live and who may die, and who gets tortured, and who disappears into a black site, inevitably such power will be abused to inflict such upon perceived political enemies. John Surratt was arrested in Alexandria, Egypt by U.S. officials on November 23, 1866. He embarked aboard USS Swatara, on December 26, 1866. On February 18, 1867, USS Swatara arrived at the Washington Navy Yard. They were in no hurry to get him there. They really did not want him at all. In court, the case against John Surratt fell apart. John Surratt was the son of Mary Surratt, she and three others having been hanged after a military tribunal kangaroo court regarding the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln, Secretary of State William Seward, and possibly Vice President Andrew Johnson and General Hyram Ulysses Grant. The military tribunals were efficient. Four bodies were in the ground less than 90 days after their purported crimes. The case against John Surratt not only fell apart but revealed the massive solicitation and subordination of perjury in the military tribunals and the destruction and hiding of exculpatory evidence. At the trial of one of the perjurers, caught at John Surratt's civilian trial while reprising his acting role from the military tribunal, Judge Fisher stated, "Had you been tried before me for the perjuries you committed at the assassination trial, I would have sentenced you to death." Once suspects are apprended and safely in custody, let the justice system take its proper course.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Press Release Suspects of piracy against French vessels, apprehended in Somalia by the French authorities, should have been brought before a legal authority as soon as they arrived in France These two cases concerned nine Somali nationals, who, having hijacked French-registered vessels off the coast of Somalia were arrested and held by the French army, then transferred to France, where they were taken into police custody and prosecuted for acts of piracy. The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Hassan and Others, as the French system applicable at the relevant time had not sufficiently guaranteed the applicants' right to their liberty; and a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security)2 in both cases, as the applicants had been taken into custody for 48 hours on their arrival in France instead of being brought "promptly" before a legal authority, when they had already been deprived of their liberty for four days and some twenty hours (Ali Samatar and Others) and six days and sixteen hours (Hassan and Others). The Court reiterated in particular that the purpose of Article 5 § 3 was to facilitate the detection of any ill-treatment and to minimise any unjustified interference with individual liberty, in order to protect the individual, by means of an automatic initial review, within a strict time-frame leaving little flexibility in interpretation. The Court's case-law to the effect that periods of two or three days before the initial appearance before a judge did not breach the promptness requirement under Article 5 § 3 was not designed to give the authorities the opportunity to intensify their investigations for the purpose of bringing formal charges against the suspects. Principal facts Ali Samatar and Others The applicants in the first case are six Somali nationals: Abdurahman Ali Samatar (application no. 17110/10), born in 1984, and also Ismael Ali Samatar, Abdulqader Guled Said, Mohamed Said Hote, Abdullahi Yusuf Hersi and Daher Guled Said (application no. 17301/10), born in 1981, 1978, 1962, 1987 and 1978 respectively. They were prosecuted in France for acts of piracy committed in 2008. On 4 April 2008 at 11.15 a.m., mid-way between the coasts of Yemen and Somalia, a cruise ship flying the French flag, the Ponant, was intercepted by a dozen men armed with assault rifles and 1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution. 2 "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of [Article 5] shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial." Press Release rocket launchers. They took possession of the vessel and took its crew hostage - about 30 crew members including 20 French nationals - and sailed it towards the Somali coast. At 1.30 p.m. the French Prime Minister launched the "pirate-sea" plan, mobilising all available resources in the area. On the next day the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) sent a diplomatic note to the French authorities, authorising them to enter Somali territorial waters and to take all necessary measures - including the proportionate use of force - in the context of the crisis. On 11 April, while the Ponant was moored off the Somali port of Garacad, the French hostages were released in return for a ransom of 2,150,000 US dollars. On the same day around noon, the six applicants were intercepted by the GIGN (intervention brigade of the French Gendarmerie) just as they were leaving Garacad in a four-wheel-drive vehicle. The applicants were placed under French military control before being put on a military aircraft on 15 April, around 3 p.m., as soon as the Somali authorities had given their permission. The plane landed in France at around 5.15 p.m. on 16 April 2008. The suspects were taken into police custody. On the morning of 18 April they were taken before an investigating judge and placed under judicial investigation. The Investigation Division of the Paris Court of Appeal, before which the applicants had lodged an appeal against that decision, complaining in particular that their arrest on Somali territory and their detention before their arrival in France had been unlawful, held in a judgment of 6 April 2009 that the proceedings had been lawful. They had, in particular, been conducted in the context of ad hoc cooperation with the Somali authorities and, taking account of the circumstances, in compliance with the requirement of promptness imposed by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 16 September 2009 the applicants' appeals on points of law were dismissed by a judgment of the Court of Cassation, which found in particular that "insurmountable circumstances, characterised by a wait for the Somali authorities to agree to the transfer of the six suspects to France, justified their deprivation of liberty for about five days before their police custody was officially ordered on 16 April 2008". Hassan and Others The applicants are three Somali nationals, Yacoub Mohammed Hassan, Cheik Nour Jama Mohamoud (application no. 46695/10) and Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed (application no. 54588/10), who were born in 1983, 1979 and 1975 respectively. They were prosecuted in France for acts of piracy committed in 2008. On 2 September 2008, off the Somali coast, the French yacht Carre d'As was intercepted by three men who obliged the crew, a French couple, to change course in order to join some other vessels. About ten men then boarded the yacht, which reached the Somali coast that evening. The couple were robbed of their possessions and held hostage for a ransom of two million dollars. On 5 September 2008 the French Naval frigate Courbet, which was patrolling the Gulf of Aden, arrived on the scene with a team of commandos. An operation to free the hostages was launched by the French military forces. On 2 June 2008 the United Nations Security Council had adopted a resolution (1816) authorising, for a six-month period, the States cooperating with the Somali TFG in the fight against piracy to enter Somalia's territorial waters and use all available means to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery. An attack was carried out on 16 September at 0.30 a.m. and six Somalis, including the applicants, were arrested, while they were within Somali territorial waters, and were placed under military guard on the Courbet. Having been taken onto the frigate at about 2 a.m. they were held on board until 1.30 p.m. on 22 September 2008. After the Somali authorities had agreed, on 21 September, to the transfer of the six Somali suspects, the applicants were then taken on that date to the Djibouti military base pending their transfer to France. They were put on a military plane on 23 September 2008 and arrived in France on the same day at around 4 p.m. They were then held in police custody until 25 September 2008 at 2.30 p.m., after which they were brought before an investigating judge on the same day: at 5.54 p.m. in the case of Mr Yacoub Press Release Mohammed Hassan, 7.30 p.m. in that of Mr Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed and 8.09 p.m. in that of Mr Cheik Nour Jama Mohamoud They were then placed under judicial investigation and remanded in custody after their first-appearance examination by the judge. Ruling on appeals by the applicants, the Investigation Division of the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed their applications on 6 October 2009, finding among other things that "the only measures to have been taken were adapted, in particular, to the aims laid down in Resolution 1816" and that this was especially the case for the restriction on the suspects' freedom of movement. The court thus held that their arrest and detention pending placement in police custody had not breached Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, having regard in particular to the "wholly exceptional circumstances" of the case in temporal and geographical terms. On 17 February 2010 appeals by the four applicants on points of law were dismissed by the Court of Cassation. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicants in the case of Hassan and Others alleged that their detention by the French military authorities from 16 to 23 September 2008 had no legal basis. In both cases, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that they had not been "brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" after their arrest by the French army in Somali territorial waters / on Somali territory. Mr Ahmed (Hassan and Others) and the applicants in the case of Ali Samatar and Others also complained, under Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily), that they did not have access to a court to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest in Somalia or their detention until they were taken into police custody in France. The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights respectively on 15 and 16 March 2010 (Ali Samatar and Others) and 13 and 16 August 2010 (Hassan and Others). The Greek Government were authorised to submit written comments as a third-party intervener (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention) in both cases. The judgments were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), President, Angelika Nussberger (Germany), Bostjan M. Zupancic (Slovenia), Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine), Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta), Andre Potocki (France), Ales Pejchal (the Czech Republic), and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar. Decision of the Court Article 5 § 1 (Hassan and Others) The Court took the view that the applicants had undergone a "lawful arrest or detention ... effected for the purpose of bringing [them] before the competent legal authority", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c), noting in particular that there had been "plausible reasons" to suspect them of committing offences against a French vessel and French citizens. The Court further found that the authorities had acted on the basis of Resolution 1816 adopted by the United Nations Security Press Release Council on 2 June 2008, authorising States, for a period of six months, to enter the territorial waters of Somalia for the purpose of repressing acts of piracy in a manner consistent with such action permitted on the high seas with respect to piracy under relevant international law. Having regard to Articles 101 and 105 (definition of piracy and seizure of a pirate ship) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea3, it found that the applicants' detention had had a legal basis. The Court found, however, that the applicable law at the relevant time did not meet the quality criteria laid down by its case-law. It did accept that the French authorities' intervention in Somali territorial waters on the basis of Resolution 1816 was "foreseeable": in the light of that Resolution, the applicants had been able to foresee, to a reasonable degree in the circumstances of the case, that by hijacking the Carre d'As and taking its crew hostage they might be arrested and detained by the French forces for the purposes of being brought before the French courts. It noted, however, that the law applicable at the relevant time to the situation of individuals arrested by French forces for acts of piracy on the high seas did not include any rule defining the conditions of deprivation of liberty that would be subsequently imposed on them pending appearance before the competent legal authority. The Court thus concluded that the legal system in force at the relevant time did not provide sufficient protection against arbitrary interference with the right to liberty and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1. Article 5 § 3 In both cases, referring to its case-law4, the Court was prepared to admit that "wholly exceptional circumstances" explained the length of the applicants' detention between their arrest and their arrival in France. The French authorities had intervened off the coast of Somalia, 6,000 km from mainland France, to repress acts of piracy of which vessels flying the French flag and a number of its citizens had been victims, in an area where piracy was becoming alarmingly rife. As the Somali authorities lacked the capacity to deal with such offences and, in the present case, to ensure that the applicants stood trial, the French authorities had decided to take them back to France. There was no evidence to suggest that the transfer had taken longer than necessary, in the light of the difficulties relating to the organisation of such an operation from a sensitive area like the Horn of Africa, and given that the flight to France had been arranged in both cases as soon as the Somali authorities had given their permission. The Court noted, however, that on their arrival in France the applicants had been taken into police custody for 48 hours rather than being brought immediately before an investigating judge. There was nothing to justify that additional delay in either of the two cases. The authorities had intervened rapidly after the hostage taking. Eleven days in the case of Ali Samatar and Others and at least eighteen days in Hassan and Others had thus passed between the decision to intervene and the applicants' arrival in France, and the French authorities could have made use of that time to prepare for them to be brought "promptly" before the competent legal authority. The Court reiterated, in particular, that the purpose of Article 5 § 3 was to facilitate the detection of any ill-treatment and to minimise any unjustified interference with individual liberty, in order to protect the individual, by means of an automatic initial review, within a strict time-frame leaving little flexibility in interpretation. As regards the French Government's argument that the applicants' period in police custody had been necessary for the purposes of the investigation, the Court pointed out that its case-law to the effect that periods of two or three days before the initial appearance before a judge did not breach the promptness requirement under Article 5 § 3 was not designed to afford the authorities an opportunity to intensify their investigations for the purpose of bringing formal charges against the suspects. 3 Montego Bay Convention of 10 December 1982, see §§ 34 and 35 of the Hassan and Others judgment 4 Rigopoulos v. Spain (decision, 12/01/1999), Medvedyev and Others v. France (Grand Chamber judgment, 29/03/2010) and Vassis and Others v. France (Chamber judgment, 27/06/2013). Press Release Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the fact that on their arrival in France, the applicants, who had already been detained for four days and about twenty hours (Ali Samatar and Others) and six days and sixteen hours (Hassan and Others), had been taken into police custody rather than being brought "promptly" before a French legal authority. Other complaints As regards the complaint submitted by Mr Ahmed and the applicants in Ali Samatar and Others under Article 5 § 4, the Court observed that it had already examined under Article 5 § 3 the deprivation of liberty sustained by the applicants before being brought before the investigating judge and placed under judicial investigation. Pointing out that the requirements of paragraph 3 were stricter than those of paragraph 4 as regards the criterion of promptness, the Court found that it did not need to examine the facts under Article 5 § 4. Just satisfaction (Article 41) The Court held that France had to pay to each of the applicants in the case of Hassan and Others 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 7,272.46 to Abdulhai Guelleh Ahmed for costs and expenses, and in Ali Samatar and Others, EUR 2,000 to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and for costs and expenses, EUR 9,000 to Abdurahman Ali Samatar, EUR 6,000 jointly to Ismael Ali Samatar, Abdulqader Guled Said, Mohamed Said Hote, Abdullahi Yusuf Hersi and Daher Guled Said, and EUR 3,000 to Abdulqader Guled Said. The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress. Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Celine Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 3 90 21 58 77) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
The court appears to have decided correctly. Government is subject to the law just as individuals are. The government did not follow the law, resulting in prejudice to the individuals, to wit: the violation of their right to not be detained without charges. Accordingly, damages are ordered and will be paid. Seems reasonable to me. If the police arrest you and lock you up without charges for several days, contrary to law, you have been damaged. Of course if these men are ultimately convicted of piracy, the money will go to their lawyers, or to their victims in restitution. Governments are more dangerous than individuals, and must be tightly bound to law, and must be made to pay whenever they step out of line, for governments have the ability to cause much greater harm to people than any individuals do.
I agree that the Court ruled correctly according to the law. The case started in 2008. In my review, I saw where there was a trial and conviction, the sentence had been served, and the perpetrator released before this current judgment. I'm not sure if that applies to all the accused perpetrators.
Even the insane 'European Court of Human Rights' has ruled against any so-called "right" of sodomites and dykes to "marry". How about that? The chart breaking down what the colors meant wouldn't come over but I bet you can guess that the dark blue means "ALLOWS" and the Grey means "Doesn't Allow". The dark blue indicates those nations (and Americans states)are ruled by judicial tyranny. NO way does any majority of their actual CITIZENRY endorse Queer "Marriage."
We could draw that conclusion. Such is the moral relativist view of those "lawyers" who uphold tyranny masquerading as "law." These ilk also presided over Hitler's Kangaroo Courts.
I can clearly see that you merely cited Kangaroo Court law as it can be interpreted/subverted. Do you personally agree with pirates having "rights" as a matter of "fairness"? Or do you merely support any and ALL laws enforced by any and ALL governments on the planet?
"Justice" system?? In THIS case? What's "proper" or "justice" is NOT this system where pirates are afforded "rights" on a technicality. I'd presume by technicality, those same pirates could well be EXECUTED as a matter of universal law.
Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), President, Angelika Nussberger (Germany), Bostjan M. Zupancic (Slovenia), Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine), Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta), Andre Potocki (France), Ales Pejchal (the Czech Republic), I appreciate and acknowledge your penchant for technical aspects of this court, detail and facts.... IF this is indeed a "judgement" call, then couldn't the pirates have been denied any settlement? If not, then why even entertain such a charade of "justice"? And couldn't have the chamber of judges ruled that a death penalty for piracy supersedes any other "right"?
Isn't "prompt" a matter of relative judgement?? Btw -- "right to liberty and security"...FOR PIRATES?? What a joke. The Court noted, however, that on their arrival in France the applicants had been taken into police custody for 48 hours rather than being brought immediately before an investigating judge. There was nothing to justify that additional delay in either of the two cases. This is clearly a mockery of justice. I smell several rats.
Yes. IF Kangaroo Court justice is to be taken seriously. Government is subject to the law just as individuals are. Do you hold the same opinion of Sharia Law? Nazi Law? Stalinist Law? Discarding gum is considered "Littering." According to the letter of the law, ALL individual are subject to citations and fines. How "seriously" should that "violation of law" be taken?? Accordingly, damages are ordered and will be paid. Seems reasonable to me. If the police arrest you and lock you up without charges for several days, contrary to law, you have been damaged. Such "damages" in this case are a sick joke. Pirates are terrorists. This is not a simple "police" detention; this was a matter of the tardy transfer of the pirates/terrorists to a Court in Europe. An investigation needs to be launched against: 1) Those transferring the pirates/terrorists. 2) The Judges 3) The Prosecution 4) The subversives who implemented a farcical law 5) The interpretation of a farcical law that gives ANY pirates/terrorists ANY "rights."
In Western nations the legal system of today is used as a weapon against the traditional nation and her peoples, in favor of third world criminals. It is far better to have far off despots who are able to give these types of criminals the justice they deserve. You never want to bring them upon our soil, let them be dealt with overseas, and we need not concern ourselves with human rights for terrorists and pirates in places like Syria and India. The West has pretty much been castrated by political correctness, as a result we should avoid any military actions in these areas. We have enemies at home to deal with, we don't need to go searching abroad for monsters to destroy. China and India depend far more upon shipping through these waters than does the US and Europe, let them step up and defend their own shipping lanes. We're bankrupt anyway, and when India and China need to deal with captured pirates they will not have the same handicaps as the West. Can you imagine trying to fight WW2 under these new rules?
#2. To: out damned spot (#1)
#3. To: CZ82 (#2)
The pirates should have been shot on sight, problem solved.
#4. To: out damned spot (#0)
The judges did not challenge France's right to arrest the pirates inside Somali territory, under UN anti-piracy rules.
#5. To: out damned spot, redleghunter, CZ82 (#0)
The extra 48 hours of custody on French soil violated the pirates' right to liberty and security under the European Convention on Human Rights, the court ruled.
#6. To: Liberator (#3)
#7. To: Liberator (#3)
#8. To: out damned spot (#0)
#9. To: Liberator (#5)
The nine Somali pirates should get thousands of euros because they were not immediately brought before a French judge, the court ruled.
#10. To: out damned spot (#0)
113. Under the terms of article 41 of the Convention,
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or its Protocols, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation the consequences of this violation, the Court granted to the aggrieved party, if there is a place, a fair satisfaction. "
a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts :
i) each of the applicants 5,000 EUR (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to tax for non-pecuniary damage ;
Clerk
Registrar President
#11. To: CZ82 (#2)
The pirates should have been shot on sight, problem solved.
#12. To: CZ82 (#6)
This sure was a stupid decision by the court considering they are holding firm on no homo marriages and the right for countries to ban certain muzzy stuff like burkas.
#13. To: CZ82 (#7)
The Court is broken down into different groups of judges so you can't really say they "ALL" agreed on this decision.
#14. To: nolu chan (#8)
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
#15. To: redleghunter (#9)
Well they could have thrown the pirates overboard. Problem solved. Sorta a "swim to justice."
#16. To: Liberator (#12)
#17. To: Liberator (#14)
So what position are you taking here? Does "right to liberty and security" apply to...Pirates...mass murderers...rapists...butchers without exception?
#18. To: Liberator (#14)
So what position are you taking here? Does "right to liberty and security" apply to...Pirates...mass murderers...rapists...butchers without exception?
Article 1 - Obligation to respect human rights
#19. To: All (#18)
issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 361 (2014)
04.12.2014 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified its Chamber judgments1 in the cases of Ali Samatar and Others v. France (applications nos. 17110/10 and 17301/10) and Hassan and Others v. France (applications nos. 46695/10 and 54588/10).
#20. To: nolu chan (#10)
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
Of course if these men are ultimately convicted of piracy, the money will go to their lawyers, or to their victims in restitution.
#22. To: CZ82 (#16)
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled there is no "RIGHT" for homos to get married, they are leaving it up to the individual country.
#23. To: nativist nationalist (#17)
It looks he would apply them to blacks engaged in crime against whites, when the whites resist being crime victims. Whites seem to have no similar rights under his doctrine, only the obligation to be the victim.
#24. To: nolu chan (#18)
I am taking the position of what the agreed upon applicable law says, as properly applied. The alleged pirates were brought before the French justice system in Europe. The French made themselves subject to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols No. 11 and No. 14, Rome, 4 XI. 1950 (Rome Convention).
#25. To: nolu chan (#18)
Once suspects are apprended and safely in custody, let the justice system take its proper course.
#26. To: nolu chan (#19)
The judgments were given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
#27. To: nolu chan, ALL (#19)
In both cases, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that they had not been "brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" after their arrest by the French army in Somali territorial waters / on Somali territory...
#28. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#20)
The court appears to have decided correctly.
#29. To: Liberator (#27)
This is clearly a mockery of justice. I smell several rats.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]