Letter to the European Court under Article 34
Yesterday evening Declan sent an email letter under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights, Erik Fribergh. Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court – complaints of intimidation have frequently been made in cases against Turkey and a number have been upheld. We believe that being ordered by a police officer in the middle of the night to leave the porch we were sleeping in (and in which we had been sleeping – and still are, by the way – since being forced to become rough sleepers on 3 November 2006) or be arrested due to police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers, and within hours of Declan being diagnosed with a sprained ankle, speaks ominously of things to come.
For the record, this is the email letter to the Registrar (the letter to the Mayor of London to which Declan refers can be read in the previous blog, and its attachment, a letter of 21 April to the head of the Catholic Church in Britain, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, can be read here):
Subject: Heavey v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22541/07)
Dear Mr Fribergh
I refer to your letter of 22 November 2007, reference ECHR-LEO.1R CO/PHA/gz, signed for the Registrar by Legal Secretary C Ovey, stating: "I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 22 September 2007 and enclosures. With reference to your request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, I can inform you that the Court will examine your application shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008. It would therefore appear unnecessary to consider your request."
Please find attached: (i) copy of my email letter of 9 May 2008 (and attachment) to the Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson, in respect of an order from PC 698B of Bishopsgate Police Station on the night of 8 May instructing my wife and I to either leave the porch we were sleeping in or be arrested due to police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers, and (ii) copy of my Certificate of Attendance of 8 May from the Royal London Hospital stating that I had a sprained ankle and was "advised to rest, elevate and ice ankle".
With particular reference to the police officer's order on the night of 8 May instructing my wife and I to either leave the City of London or be arrested, within hours of me spraining my ankle, I wish to draw to the Court's attention a violation of Article 34 (formally Article 25) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and request that the Court take this matter up with the respondent Government.
Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has frequently emphasised that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court. Article 34 states that:
The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.
Under Article 34, applicants must not be subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to modify or withdraw their complaints. "Pressure" includes direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation (of applicants, potential applicants, their families and legal representatives), but also any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.
In the case of Kurt v Turkey (No. 24276/94, 25.5.98, (1999) 26 EHRR 373), the Court found there had been improper pressure in violation of former Article 25, after the applicant alleged that she had been pressurised by the authorities to withdraw her application to the Commission.
In assessing the degree of interference, the Court will take account of the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities, including any legitimate fear of reprisals. In this regard, I beg to point out that my request for priority of 8 September 2007 states:
Since 3 November 2006 the applicant and his wife have been sleeping rough in the porch of an office building in the heart of London's business district. On 22 November, the Dellow Centre recorded on the applicant's wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the Centre that neither the applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits" [having had to go on state benefits in July 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions ceased the applicant's and his wife's allowance entitlement on 27 September 2006 because the applicant did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September].
I can confirm that my care of address, the Dellow Centre, has received no correspondence from the Court subsequent to your letter of 22 November.
Please would you acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Video: MPs debate embryology laws
British MPs voted yesterday to allow controversial plans to update human embryology laws to continue to their next Parliamentary stage, despite deep splits among MPs. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was given its second reading by 340 votes to 78, a majority of 262. The government, faced with the prospect of a rebellion by Roman Roman Catholic ministers, has promised Labour MPs a free vote on the most contentious issues. These include the creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos.
On 12 May the Guardian reported under the title “What's in the bill”:
The bill allows the creation of so-called "admixed" cytoplasmic hybrid embryos. Scientists want to inject DNA from the nucleus of adult human cells into a hollowed out cow or rabbit egg. The resulting tiny ball of cells would have 99% human DNA and would not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days in the lab. It could not be implanted into the womb of a human or animal but would be used to create stem cells for research without having to use human eggs. The minority of religious groups who believe human life begins when sperm and egg meet say the research violates the sanctity of human life.
The main battle will come next Monday at Committee Stage, when MPs will have a free vote on the part of the Bill relating to research using cytoplasmic hybrid embryos.