ISTANBUL, November 26 (Itar-Tass) — Russia and Turkey are striving for intensive interaction in juridical affairs on the bilateral and international levels, Russian Justice Minister Alexander Konovalov told Itar-Tass on Friday. He participates in the 30th conference of justice ministers the Council of Europe holds here.
“We begin to develop more intensive interaction with Turkey in justice area thanks to the active and tactful position of Turkish presidency in the Council of Europe,” the minister said. Juridical protection and assistance to citizens and Russian-Turkish interaction in the area has assumed more importance in the recent years in view of a large number of incidents with tourists.
Konovalov also pointed to Russia’s particular interest in reforming the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). “We are interested particularly in the experience of Turkey that had serious problems with the ECHR some time back. Making a number of pragmatic systemic decisions at the national jurisdiction level it managed to resolve or, at least, to minimize these problems,” he said. Konovalov said Turkey continues to refer a large number of cases to the ECHR, and is interested in perfecting judicial procedure. “I hope we will cooperate successfully in this respect not only with Turkey but also with other countries that press more actively than other for reform of the ECHR,” the minister said.
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, has been ruled unlawful by the European court of human rights
Owen Bowcott
Police will need fresh powers enabling them to stop and search people at the Olympics opening ceremony, and in other sensitive circumstances, the government’s independent adviser on terrorism law is expected to warn today.
Lord Carlile, who is due to deliver a keynote speech at Dorchester Abbey, near Oxford, this evening, will argue that a replacement is needed for section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which has been ruled unlawful by the European court of human rights. That section, which allows officers to stop and search people without grounds for suspicion, has been at the heart of disputes between civil rights lawyers and ministers.
Carlile, a former Lib Dem MP, was appointed as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2005. He has been criticised for his defence of control orders, which restrict individuals to virtual house arrest on the basis of secret evidence.
In his lecture – entitled Terrorism: have we got the law right? –Carlile will call for the number of control orders to be reduced but will insist they were necessary in the absence of any acceptable legal alternatives for dealing with the detention of terrorist suspects who cannot be prosecuted.
But his most controversial comments will be in relation to section 44 powers which expanded rapidly between 2004 and 2008 when they were used to question people more than 117,200 times. He will suggest that section 43 powers, which allow police to stop and search people if they have reasonable suspicions, should be more widely used insteadby counterterrorism officers. But he will contend that officers must be able to stop and search people on a broader and more random basis in certain limited types of circumstances.
The powers, he will propose, would have to be compatible with the law and restricted to three categories:
• Rapidly developing incidents such as in the context of counter-terrorism operations where arrests are being made.
• In relation to restricted and sensitive infrastructure, such as places where international telephone lines come on to British shores.
• National events where a risk assessment indicates a potential terrorist threat (such as the Olympics opening ceremony.
Carlile will also address the political debate over the length of time terrorist suspects can be held for questioning before being charged. The last government extended the period from 14 to 28 days in the face of fierce opposition from civil liberties groups.
Carlile will accept the need to retain the 28-day limit but request increasedjudicial oversight of the process, believing that in practice it will rarely be used.
On “deportation with assurances” arrangements that enable the removal from Britain of those certified as international terror suspects, Carlile is expected to endorse their use.
Some of these individuals, he will say, cannot be deported forcibly because the regimes to which they would be returned cannot be relied on to respect human rights.
The special immigration appeals commission , the secretive court that deals with deportation on grounds of national security, needs to reconsider how to deal with these cases, Carlile will say.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jun/24/stop-and-search-police-rights, 24 June 2010
GREEK CYPRIOTS LIVING SECOND SHOCK IN PROPERTY CASES AT ECHR
The Greek Cypriot Administration is living its second shock following a new ruling concerning property in Cyprus . Following the ruling in April which recognised the North Cyprus based Immovable Property Commission as being able to provide a domestic legal remedy to Greek Cypriots, a second ruling made yesterday has also gone against the Greek Cypriots concerning the use of property in Northern Cyprus which previously belonged to Greek Cypriots. Let’s view our report….
The European Court of Human Rights had made a ruling in April which recognised the North Cyprus based Immovable Property Commission as being able to provide an effective domestic legal remedy to Greek Cypriot applicants, even though it recognised the body as being a subordinate authority of Turkey. The same ruling had also ruled that cases can be resolved through compensation, exchange and restitution – and another striking feature of the ruling was that the human right of the current property possessor also had to be respected.
Following this ruling, two more Greek Cypriot brought cases against Turkey concerning property in the TRNC was dealt with and a ruling was made by the ECHR yesterday. The two cases of “Asproftas and Petrakidu” were brought under Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which says:
“CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, ARTICLE 8:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of
this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary
in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety
or the economic well-being of the country…
The two cases alleged that Turkey had violated this Article, particularly the part of the Article referring to “his home.” However the case had actually been brought by the next of kin (children) of the original, previous owner.
The question which the court sought to answer was whether the “next of kin” or children could benefit from this Article. In the two cases, it was alleged that the applicants had lived in the properties until 11-12 years of age, and so it was argued that the term “family home” covered them. However the ECHR ruled that the Article was not applicable, and the ruling means that the respecting family life, his home and correspondence has not passed to the new generation of Greek Cypriots, whose families may have possessed property in North Cyprus prior to the Turkish peace intervention in 1974.
The ruling of the ECHR did not stop there. According to Greek Cypriot press reports, the ruling has also stated that when such applications were being made, “there was a need to have a manifest concrete relation to the property with no weaknesses”. The court ruled that this was not the case in these cases. It also said that “they should not have realistic expectations” of seeking to reinstate legal rights on a property following the long passing of time.
The ECHR ruling has once again gone against the Greek Cypriot point of view that “Property Rights belong to the original owner”.
Unless we admit Turkey, says Mr Erdogan, the EU will “end up a Christian club”. Well, is that so very bad? Didn’t Christians invent just about everything for the last 400 years? And how would Europe remain recognisably European (or even Christian) after a mass-movement of Anatolian Muslims into our cities?
For one thing that Ryanair has taught us is the overnight mobility of populations. And Turkish immigration will probably not consist of cosmopolitan elites but of peasants and their imams from Anatolia, accompanied by their burkas, naquibs and madrasas.
And if you wonder about the outcome, wonder no more: simply go to Bradford and Blackburn and ask them about the boundless delights of mass-Islamic immigration. Go on. Ask them.
kmyers@independent.ie
myers hakkinda bilgi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Myers
Only DNA samples for those convicted of crimes should be kept, according to the ruling. Photograph: PA
Police forces in much of the UK could be forced to destroy the DNA details of hundreds of thousands of people with no criminal convictions, after a court ruled today that keeping them breaches human rights.
The European court of human rights in Strasbourg said that keeping innocent people’s DNA records on a criminal register breached article eight of the Human Rights Convention, covering the right to respect for private and family life.
The decision was welcomed by civil liberties campaigners, but the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said she was “disappointed”. Police chiefs warned that destroying DNA details would make it harder to investigate many crimes.
The European court said that keeping DNA material from those who were “entitled to the presumption of innocence” as they had never been convicted of an offence, carried “the risk of stigmatisation”.
Attacking the “blanket and indiscriminate nature” of the power to retain data, the judges said protections offered by article eight “would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests”.
The decision could oblige the government to order the destruction of DNA data belonging to those without criminal convictions among the approximately 4.4m records on the England, Wales and Northern Ireland database.
Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people, who are eventually not charged or who are later acquitted.
The decision follows a lengthy legal challenge by two British men. Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in March 2001 and charged with harassing his partner, but the case was later dropped.
Separately, a 19-year-old named in court only as “S” was arrested and charged with attempted robbery in January 2001, when he was 12, but he was cleared five months later.
The men, both from Sheffield, asked that their fingerprints, DNA samples and profiles be destroyed. South Yorkshire police refused, saying the details would be retained “to aid criminal investigation”.
They applied to the European court after their case was turned down by the House of Lords, which ruled that keeping the information did not breach human rights.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group, Liberty, which helped fund the case, said parliament should be allowed to debate new DNA database rules.
“This is one of the most strongly-worded judgments that Liberty has ever seen from the court of human rights,” she said, arguing that the court had ensured “the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver”.
Smith, however, said existing laws would remain in place while ministers considered the judgment.
“DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month, and I am disappointed by the European court of human rights’ decision,” she said.
“The government mounted a robust defence before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice.”
Chris Sims, the chief constable of Staffordshire police, who speaks on forensics for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the ruling would have a “profound impact” on policing.
Analysis of 200,000 DNA samples retained on the database between 2001 and 2005, which would have to be destroyed under today’s ruling, showed that 8,500 profiles had been linked to crime scenes, among them 114 murders and 116 rapes, said Sims.
