Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:04:15.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duties of Investigation Under the European Convention on Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Alastair Mowbray
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent times the European Court of Human Rights has been very active in developing a number of duties of investigation, under various substantive Articles of the Convention,1 which member States are obliged to comply with. Therefore, this paper seeks to analyse the nature and scope of these important duties, together with the interrelationships between them.2

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 437 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Limitations of space preclude an examination of investigation obligations under Art 13, which mandates the provision of effective domestic remedies for violations of Convention rights: see Mowbray, A, Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights (London: Butterworths, 2001) 602.Google Scholar

2 For previous discussions see, Starmer, K, European Human Rights Law (London: Legal Action Group, 1999) 204–5, 392–3Google Scholar and Merrills, JG, Human Rights in Europe, 4th edn (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001) 30–1 and 196.Google Scholar

3 (1995) 21 EHRR 97. More generally see also, Aolain, FN, ‘The Evolving Jurisprudence of the European Convention Concerning the Right to Life’ 19(1) Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 21 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Buckley, C, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and the Right to Life in Turkey’ 1(1) Human Rights Law Review 35 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Ibid para 161.

5 1998–IV.

6 Ibid para 82.

7 Judgment of 10 May 2001. The Court's judgments are available from <http//www.echr.coe.int>.

8 Ibid para 132.

9 Judgment of 4 May 2001.

10 Ibid para 94.

11 Judgment of 18 May 2000.

12 Ibid para 80.

13 Above n 9.

14 Note, the same Chamber pronounced identical requirements in the simultaneous cases of Hugh Jordan v UK, paras 105–9; McKerr v UK, paras. 111–15 and Shanaghan v UK, paras 88–92: judgments of 4 May 2001.

15 (1998) 28 EHRR 121.

16 Kelly and Others v UK, above n 9.

17 On the work of this body see, Evans, MD and Morgan, R, Preventing Torture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).Google Scholar

18 Above n 5.

19 Ibid para 83.

20 Above n 15.

21 Ibid para 80.

22 See Tas v Turkey, Judgment of 14 Nov 2000, para 71.

23 Above n 9, para 96.

24 Above n 15, para 82.

25 (1998) 28 EHRR 1.

26 Ibid para 89.

27 See Gulec, above n 15, on the use of these tests to identify the type of weapon used.

28 Above n 25.

29 Judgment of 28 Mar 2000.

30 Ibid, para 104.

31 Judgment of 14 Dec 2000.

32 Judgment of 10 Apr 2001.

33 Above n 22.

34 (1998) 28 EHRR 408.

35 Above n 15.

36 Above n 9.

37 1998–VIII.

38 Above n 3.

39 It contained only Judge Baka from the Chamber that gave judgment in Assenov.

40 Judgment of 11 Apr 2000.

41 Note, Judges Bonello, Baka and Golcuklu had also been members of the Chamber in Sevtap Veznedaroglu and Judges Baka and Makarczyk had previously been members of the Chamber in Assenov.

42 Judgment of 27 June 2000.

43 Judgment of 10 Oct 2000.

44 Including Judges Casadevall, Maruste and Golcuklu who had previously been members of the Grand Chamber in Ilhan.

45 Above n 43, para 62.

46 Judgment of 23 May 2001.

47 Ibid, para 388.

48 (1998) 27 EHRR 91.

49 Above n 7.

50 Ibid, para 145.

51 See, A Mowbray, ‘A New European Court of Human Rights’ [1994] Public Law 540 and ‘The Composition and Operation of the New European Court of Human Rights’ [1999] Public Law 219.