Hi, I am attending the international human rights law classes in my college as a elective course. Because of some health issues I had a problem about regular attendance so that my professor demand me to prepare a paper about 2 case. But as I said just because of attendance problem I am having a trouble to link the cases to the international human rights law thats why I am asking your help.
Thanks from advance!
Cases that I need to work on
Case no. 3.
Hillary Hart and Bill Cloron have been married for 15 years, but could not have children because of health
reasons, which doctors said was to be a very unlucky combination of their separate inherited genetical
illnesses – but still stayed together. Later Mrs. Cloron started an intimate affair with his boss, which was
not known to Mr. Cloron for a few months, but then he became suspicious and hired a private detective
who finally provided him with some hard proof about the relationship. He immediately filed for divorce at
the local court, but Hart’s attorney has stated that the proof is illegal, so cannot be used in the process – as
a matter of fact, the evidence was acquired by wiretapping the phone lines of Hart’s workplace, because of
this a separate lawsuit was started by the firm against Cloron’s detective. The judge has decided to wait to
the end of that lawsuit, to see if the proof was lawfully obtained, and suspended the process. In 1 year
time Hillary and Bill have managed to settle their personal conflict and made an agreement about a
peaceful divorcement, so that both of them can move on with their lives, and marry their new partners.
They jointly asked their process to contine with the divorce but the judge refused, and they could not get
divorced for the next 9 years, during which nothing has happened in the divorce case.
Case no. 4.
National Opposition Association (NOA) is a political organisation opposing the government in the
country, and has been very active in organising rallies, strikes against it. One day Luc Lezinn, one of the
ministers of the country has become drunk in a restaurant during a closed government reception, and
started shouting “all those NOA good-for-nothin’ idiots should be sent to the mines, at least they would
do something useful”, and “yeah, they may march here and there up and down, but who the hell cares, I
surely don’t”. A journalist from one of the independent newspapers has recorded this with his mobile
phone camera and so the videos have become available on the website of the newspaper within an hour,
and then spread quickly all over the Internet. Ian Lockle and Joachim Glock, who are members of NOA
have immediately called their friends and told them to meet in front of the hotel where the reception was
held. In 20 minutes, already 200 protesters were there, chanting “Lezinn, resign!” and after being told that
the minister has already left, changed it to “Lucky Luc!”. The police has ordered them to leave, as the
assembly was not previously notified to the police, and according to the local law, a previously unreported
rally shall be dissolved – but NOA activists have refused to go. At the end the police dissolved the
assembly, arrested Mr. Lockle and Mr. Glock, and fined each of them for € 1.200.
I need to point out the followings,
1. What human rights are affected in your opinion?
2. Show the exact human rights from the two most important human rights conventions
applicable to European countries: first find the relevant articles from both the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (accepted at the level of the
UN) and from the European Convention on Human Rights (accepted at the level of
the Council Of Europe)!
3. If You can find differences between the two, show these differences and try to explain a
possible reason to them!
4. If You were to represent the person(s) underlined in front of the European Court of
Human Rights in Strasbourg, what reasoning would You build up, based on the
European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the Court? Can You
find similar cases, that could serve as precedents?