Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Article 2 – Right to Life 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. 2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary a in defence of any person from unlawful violence b in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained c in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. GENERAL RULE Can’t deprive one of right to life per Art. 21. EXCEPTION 1 • Acting in defence of oneself or another person i.e. selfdefence art. 22a • In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent a person escaping from lawful detention art. 22b or • To lawfully quell a riot or insurrection art. 22c. Force must be absolutely necessary to achieve above aims, and only the minimum, absolutely necessary force can be applied art. 22 EXCEPTION 2 Not Actually Applicable Art. 21 ostensibly provides another exception death sentence handed down by a court. However, do not apply this apparent exception because the death penalty was abolished by ECHR Part Ill Article I of the Thirteenth Protocol, incorporated into Schedule 1 HRA 1998 by the Human Rights Act 1998 Amendment Order 20041574. KEY CASE McCann, Farrell Savage v UK 1995 A leading case on art 2. Facts British SAS soldiers shot and killed three Provisional IRA members in Gibraltar, believing they were about to detonate a bomb. The UK argued the killings were necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. However, the ECtHR held that the UK violated Article 2 due to failures in planning and control, making the use of lethal force avoidable. Held This case laid down two positive obligations for the State in relation to the exceptions to the right to life under art. 22. The State must 1 conduct an investigation when a public body has directly taken a life 2 refrain from unlawful killing. CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION Duty applies whether the life was taken in the UK or abroad AlSkeini v UK 2011. The investigation must be • Proper and effective Jordan v UK 2001 Kelly Others v UK 2001 and • Full, open and transparent. Any investigation should be conducted in public, independent of the State and where possible involve the participation of the deceaseds family R Amin v Secretary of State for the Home Dept. 2003. REMEMBER if the State fails to conduct an investigation after taking a life, this breach, even if it used no more force than was absolutely necessary and was acting in pursuit of one of the aims in art. 22ac when it took the life in question. DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM UNLAWFUL KILLING This duty has also been expressed as the duty of command, control and training, i.e. ensuring that those who take life such as police marksmen are highly trained and overseen at all times. If the State does not follow these two obligations, then any killing is unlawful. Further case law examples • Kelly Others v UK 2001 • Shanaghan v UK 2001 • Jordan v UK 2001 • McKerr v UK 2001 • Osman v UK 1998 • R Amin v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2003 MEDICAL CASES NHS Trust A v M 2001 Withdrawing treatment from someone in a permanent vegetative State who has no chance of recovery is not a breach of art. 2. R Pretty v UK 2002 Assisted suicide is not permitted as a matter of policy although the DPP is typically unwilling to prosecute in such cases. Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust 2012 The State assumed responsibility for a mental patient by accepting him for treatment, so were held to be responsible for his suicide whilst in care. Relevant Cases Explained R Amin v Secretary of State for the Home Dept. 2003 Zahid Mubarek, a young British Asian man, was murdered by his racist cellmate in Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution in 2000. His family sought a public inquiry, which the government refused. The HoL ruled that the state had violated Article 2 by failing to conduct an independent, public, and effective investigation, reinforcing the duty to ensure accountability for deaths in state custody. AlSkeini Others v UK 2011 Six Iraqi civilians killed by British forces in Basra in 2003 during the UK’s occupation of Iraq. The UK initially argued that the ECHR did not apply outside its territory. However, the ECtHR ruled that the UK had jurisdiction under Article 1 ECHR because it exercised effective control over Basra. The Court found a violation of Article 2 right to life due to the UK’s failure to conduct proper investigations into the deaths, expanding extraterritorial application of human rights law. Kelly Others v UK 2001 Eight IRA members killed by the British Army in 1987 at Loughgall, Northern Ireland. The applicants, families of the deceased, alleged a violation of Article 2 due to the use of excessive force and lack of an effective investigation. The ECtHR ruled the complaint inadmissible, as the applicants had not exhausted domestic legal remedies e.g. seeking judicial review mandate under Article 351 ECHR. However, the case underscored the importance of proper investigations into state killings under Article 2. Shanaghan v UK 2001 Patrick Shanaghan, a Catholic man in Northern Ireland, was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in 1991. His family alleged collusion between security forces and the killers, as well as failures in the police investigation. They claimed the UK violated • Article 2 right to life due to state involvement or failure to prevent his death. • Article 14 prohibition of discrimination, arguing that the authorities failed to protect him because of his Catholic background. ECtHR held Insufficient evidence to prove direct state involvement in the murder, yet UK still breached Article 2 because police investigation was ineffective and lacked independence as they’d failed to properly examine potential state collusion. No violation of Article 14 was found, as there was no clear evidence that Shanaghan was deliberately denied protection due to his religion. Jordan v UK 2001 Pearse Jordan, an unarmed man, was shot and killed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary RUC in Northern Ireland in 1992. His family argued that the police investigation and inquest process were flawed, violating Article 2. ECtHR ruled that the UK violated Article 2 because the investigation into Jordan’s death 1. Lacked independence – The RUC investigated its own officers, creating a conflict of interest. 2. Had excessive delays – The inquest was severely delayed over eight years, undermining its effectiveness. 3. Did not ensure proper public scrutiny – Key evidence was withheld from the victim’s family, limiting their ability to participate in the process. 4. Did not lead to accountability – No one was prosecuted or held responsible, failing to satisfy the state’s duty to ensure accountability for deaths caused by security forces. Osman v UK 1998 The case involved the death of Mr. Osman’s father, who was killed by a man Mr. Z with whom he had no prior contact. Mr. Z had previously shown threatening behavior toward Osman’s family, but despite the police being informed of the danger, no protective action was taken. Osman argued that the police had failed in their duty to protect his father’s life under Article 2. ECtHR ruled that • While Article 2 imposes a duty on states to protect life, this duty is not absolute and requires a reasonable judgment based on available information. • The Court found that there had been a breach of Article 2 because the police had not acted effectively to prevent the threat, particularly given the prior warnings.