The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its recent judgment Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia recognised a right of access to documents held by public authorities based on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression). The Youth Initiative for Human Rights is a Belgrade-based NGO. It monitors the implementation of transitional laws in order to promote human rights, the rule of law and democracy.
The NGO requested that the Serbian intelligence agencies disclose the number of people subject to its electronic surveillance operations in 2005. The intelligence agency refused and the case was brought before the ECtHR.
Finding a violation of Article 10, the court noted that the right to receive information also implied a right to access information. The court held that “As the applicant was obviously involved in the legitimate gathering of information of public interest with the intention of imparting that information to the public and thereby contributing to the public debate, there has been an interference with its right to freedom of expression.”
The court also noted that “when a non-governmental organisation is involved in matters of public interest, such as the present applicant, it is exercising a role as a public watchdog of similar importance to that of the press”.
In a joint concurring opinion, Judges Sajó and Vučinić said “In the world of the Internet the difference between journalists and other members of the public is rapidly disappearing. There can be no robust democracy without transparency, which should be served and used by all citizens.”
Click here to read an article on the Strasbourg Observers blog about the case.
On 9 July in the case of Vintner and Others v United Kingdom the ECtHR held that a life sentence with no possibility of release violates Article 3 of the ECHR. Article 3 prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
The case concerned three applicants, all of whom had been sentenced to life in prison for murder. The sentences were imposed in accordance with the UK's Criminal Justice Act 2003. Prior to the entry into force of the 2003 Act, when a sentence was imposed, the Home Secretary would decide on a minimum period to be served (called the tariff). Where whole life tariffs were set, sentences were automatically reviewed by the Home Secretary 25 years into the sentence. Under the 2003 Act the judge imposes both the sentence and tariff but there is no provision for automatic review of life tariffs after 25 years. The tariffs imposed on the applicants meant that their only prospect of release would be at the discretion of the Home Secretary on compassionate grounds (for instance, if they were terminally ill).
The court said that the law was unclear in relation to the government’s discretion to release the prisoners on compassionate grounds. The court noted that the majority of member states either do not use life sentences at all or, if they do, they provide a mechanism for the sentence to be reviewed after a period of time, often 25 years.
The court found that in order for a life sentence to comply with Article 3 there must be at least a possibility of release and a possibility of review. The court’s decision does not mean that the applicants will be released from prison.
According to an article on the Oxford Human Rights Hub blog analysing the decision, “The hopelessness inherent in a practically irreducible sentence cannot satisfy the obligations incumbent on civilised societies under Article 3 ECHR. ‘Throwing away the key’ contravenes the basic promise of a life with dignity, which ought to be important, not only to European human rights judges, but also to national governments and individual citizens who subscribe to the ideal of affording to everyone their basic human rights.”
Click here to read a ECtHR press release about the case.
Click here to read an article about the case on the Oxford Human Rights Blog.