Talk:European Court of Human Rights/Archive 1

Minimal age to be punishable
The criminal age in england is ten. Many children are detained at that age. Is this usual in Europe and isnt it a breach of childrens rights to childehood


 * I'm unaware of the specifics of British law, and what you exactly refer to as the "criminal age".
 * In France, the procedure for judging minors (< 18) is different from that of judging adults. Prison sentences can be handed for minors as young as 13, but that is only in rather exceptional circumstances. The handling of violent juvenile delinquents is an ongoing topic of controversy. David.Monniaux 10:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In the Netherlands the minimal age for prosecution is 12. From 12-16 always juvenile court, from 16-18 it depends. --Otto 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope there is a place for the following information somewhere on Wikipedia. Any Ideas?

European Court of Human Rights Denying Human Rights to Access Information.
European Court of Human Rights Denying Human Rights to Access Information.

There seems to be nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights protecting human rights to access to information - at least any rights to information regarding the basis for decision of the Three Judge Committee to reject a complaint brought before the European Court of Human Rights. Note that a typical rejection letter from The European Court of Human Rights states that following the Three Judge Committee decision to reject a complaint, the person bringing the complaint before the European Court of Human Rights has no right to any specific information regarding the decision of the courts, no right to a reply to further correspondence regarding the case and no right to effective remedy against the decision of the Committee. A logical step towards guaranteeing human rights would be to bring this to public attention in hope to amend the Convention and include decision to protect human rights to access information regarding the Court's decisions. Making sure that following all articles of the Convention are to be respected not only by all nations but also by the European Court of Human Rights itself. For instance, the lack of application of Article 13 of the convention by the European Court of Human Rights to its own behavior is highly questionable - the fact that the Court of Human Rights denies people any effective remedy against its decisions rejecting cases or finding them unfounded. This in combination with denying access to any specific information regarding the basis for Committee's decision to do so is reminiscent of courts under Stalin.

Sources http://mailgate.supereva.com/pl/pl.listserv.dziennikarz/msg21874.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_court_of_human_rights Submitted copies of additional rejection letters would be welcome. At least one translation coming soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Know_Day

(Writ by MC.)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Convention_on_Human_Rights"

"Appeals" to the European Court of Human Rights
Could somebody have a look at Talk:Cour de cassation ? Apokrif 18:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

unfair on the UK
To have 4 out of the six "other cases" on it, it makes us seem like some brutal reigme. Let's have more of a spead, please? 84.70.127.136 18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Explicit Contradiction

 * In the first section, third paragraph: The court consists of a number of judges equal to the number of States Parties, which currently stand at forty-six. 
 * Now, look at the list.
 * 47. Mr Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar (Irish)
 * The seat of judge in respect of Monaco is currently vacant.
 * 47+1=48>46

Could someone fix this? samwaltz 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. The Registrar and Deputy Registrar are not judges, even though they are included in the composition of the Court: they are appointed differently and have mostly administrative tasks. I edited the page, it should make more sense now. SFinamore 11:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! samwaltz 11:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removade "the case for Cornwall"
I removed the following sentence from the section "Notable cases": In 2006 the case for Cornwall, in respect of alleged violations of the European Convention of Human Rights, Articles 6, (independent and impartial courts); 8, (respect family life); 10, (freedom of expression); 13, (violations by officials); 14 with Protocol 12, (discrimination on the grounds of association with a national minority, property, birth or other status); 17, (the official destruction of rights); Protocol 1 Article 1, (property rights) with 385 supporting documents, was submitted by members of the Cornish Stannary Parliament to the European Court of Human Rights. The case is not yet decided and hence not notable at present. If the court rules in favour of the applicants, I think the case will be notable. But if not, I do not see any reason why this is an important case. Pierreback 17:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Special Case Germany
I think the section "Special Case Germany" should be removed. For example in Sweden the European Convention was not directly applicable until the early 1990's, and this does not contradict the convention in any way. The statements in the section about "Special Case Germany" is misleading in my opinion. Ulner (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The ECHR operates parallel and subordinate to domestic law in almost all contracting States, even where it is incorporated. Also the Council of Ministers is an EU institution. I'm fairly sure they have no role to play in enforcing the decisions of the ECtHR. Thehappyhobo (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Name in introduction
Should the article reflect the French name as well as its English name (European Court Of Human Rights) like some of the articles on the EU do? (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.242.28 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

P2 Lodge connection
In the article Propaganda Due, it says that the European Court of Human Rights has been one of the main political protectors of so-called secret lodges, unregistered masonic lodges that have historically included the famously banned Italian lodge. It is a bit disconcerting to read such claims, that the Court of Human Rights is acting as a facilitator to some of the most deplorable agents of corruption in all of Europe. ADM (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Legal Affairs and Human Rights PACE rapporteur: 36 states failing to heed judgments of the Court"
. This is indeed very serious and should be worked into the article by someone competent (not me). --RCS (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdiction
It seems to me that the article should have a separate section on the court's jurisdiction (the scope of issues it can consider, the legally binding/non-binding nature of its decisions, their enforcibility, etc). If someone knows good sources with this kind of information, please add this info to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Armenia

 * "The court has used admissibility as a political tool in the past. Most recently, in October 2009 it declared inadmissable cases against Armenia that were clearly admissable, in an effort to reward/pressure Armenia into signing an accord with Turkey."

Please stop inserting this text into the article. It's unsourced, opinionated very likely to be just another internet conspiracy theory. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is backed up by the increase in denials in favor of Armenia in October 2009. It is also backed up by the fact that denial letters were sent from Zurich, Switzerland (where accords signed) instead of Strasbourg, France.

If you are not a servant of the Court, then how do you explain the above? In one case the admissibility decision was made on Oct. 6 yet not mailed until Oct. 13. Was that just a coincidence that Armenia signed on Oct. 10 or were they waiting for the signature in case they needed to modify the unpublicized decision? OK, then how do you explain away the fact that the letters were mailed from Zurich? The court is in FRANCE not SWITZERLAND, but the accords were signed in ZURICH. Somebody should've returned to Strasbourg before mailing the letters, unless of course they were trying to inform us of the corruption.

The scum-bag lawyer from the simpson's is really a fitting description of User:Blue-Haired Lawyer. READ the court's 2008 annual report. You'll find from the text that even the president of the court, in his speech, acknowledges the view that "the Court has become political or sometimes gives decisions on non-legal grounds"..."This court is no more infallible than any other" So of course YOU assume all courts are always correct and unbiased. COURTS have always been created to serve their political masters. Have you forgotten the Bush v. Gore vote, straight down political party lines?

Get serious, what other non-selective court has a 94% inadmissibility rate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.58.226 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to insert controversial statements like this into Wikipedia, please find some wp:sources! What evidence do you have to back up any of this? Have you considered that you might just be spreading unsubstantiated rumours? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Authority, jurisdiction, etc.
Who enforces the courts decisions? This sounds like an international organization rather than an actual judicial body with the power to enforce it's rulings. For example in April of this year it ruled that Scientology is a legitimate religion in Russia. I haven't seen any news of the Russians actually recognizing it though, and as I read the article it seems to me that they don't have to abide by their rulings since participation is by signing countries. Anynobody 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Russia is a party to the Convention and therefore under international law obliged to abide by it, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. If it doesn't do so, it is in violation of international law, which happens, but the obligation is there. The European Court of Human Rights is an actual judicial body. SchnitteUK (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

More balance is needed
I think this article currently fails to cover criticism of the court well enough. Considering the number of disgusting rulings this unaccountable and incompetent court has made which has been met with condemnation from many, it seems to gloss over how controversial it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-human right to references
This article is seriously lacking references. The History section has ONLY one reference, and I just added that a few minutes ago. I think this article's non-human rights for references need improvement. Please add some if you can. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

merging into other articles and deleting the "notable cases" section
As far as i can tell all of the "Notable cases" relate to significant and controversial judgements of the court in particular areas. Wikipedia should of course cover these, but this article is not the right place for them. (for comparison see Supreme Court of the United States which is considerably more developed and should probably be the model for this article.) Unless anyone has any arguments against it i am going to go through this section and merge the relevant information to the articles on the relevant convention article ( so for example moving any unduplicated information on Patton v UK to the article on article 2) Ajbpearce (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose If the US court is the model for these fellows, God help them! I wonder if they go duck hunting with the defendents. History2007 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinating as your personal opinions as to the nature of the US Supreme Court doubtless are. I would appreciate it if future replies would direct themselves to the issue at hand rather than more abstract discussion Ajbpearce (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is called the 1st ammendment. I keep using it, since it is free. Is there a fee one has to pay for attempted humor in Europe? History2007 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD
I saw that Ajbpearce deleted the sections, regardless the opposition here. So I provided a WP:BRD notice on his talk page. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had read your above comments and had assumed you were simply making a "joke" of some kind, certainly I could find no discernible argument in your post that caused me any concern. Could you please (re)explain why you are opposed to mergeing the relevant information concerning substantive law into the articles on those topics and keeping this article focused on the court itself as an institution?? Ajbpearce (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actions speak louder than lists of judges. What I found useless in that article was the item on the achitecture of the building, what I found useful were the actions. Hence some of the key cases would be best highlighted in the main page rather than pushed into oblivion elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the information placed in that section may be useful, which i why i am also merging any relevant information into my expansion of of the articles on the substantive law of the court. But the section that exists in the article at the moment simply gives a ragtag collection of a few isolated judgements, with no discernible policy of selection, that were of interest to whomever added them, rather than any coherent look at the jurisprudence of the court in any particular area. I can see that we could make the article more formative to include a brief paragraph highlighting links to articles on some of the most notable decisions of the court, but the current section fails to be truly informative or particularly useful in my view, for that purpose.Ajbpearce (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I a not sure what your final version will look like, so can not say. History2007 (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that you want to move on to edits regardless of WP:BRD. Please do not ignore Wikipedia policies. You must discuss changes beforehand based on the WP:BRD cycle. History2007 (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to explain the edits that I am planning on making to that section of the article; however i would appreciate it if you took every effort to read fully my replies, understand the area in which we are editing and to read carefully any wikipedia essay's guidelines or policies that you cite (so you do not make inadvertent errors like describing WP:BRD as a policy that must be followed). At present, the section which I am currently editing exists solely as a somewhat inaccurate and outdated rag-tag collection of random ECHR judgements added by a whoever had a passing interest in a particular case. In its current form it is not an edifying or appropriate section of this article and it will need to be removed. I had originally planned on simply removing the section, moving any relevant information to the relevant individual articles of the convention and creating a list of notable cases link to add too the "see also section". however, your comments above alerted me to the fact that many readers would find it informative to be introduced to the jurisprudence and decisions of the court within the main article. So, i am currently drafting a new introductory piece on the courts judgements to replace that section. I hope that when finished it will provide a much more comprehensive and useful introduction to the work of the court that the current section; which as it presently stands  actively distorts the article away from what reality and reliable sources would include.Ajbpearce (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First, please let us avoid the "lecturing judge tone". Both of us have exactly the same rights to edit this article - until this court says otherwise. Now, I do serious other problems with this article and since it is being discussed we may as well bring them up.

What does a user need to know when they click on this page?


 * What does this court do?
 * How did it come about?
 * How do people use it?
 * What do its actions look like?
 * Does it make any difference to the word?

These would be some basic questions that one would need to answer for a new reader. The list of judges is currently taking up space and is best moved elsewhere. These judges are here today, replaced in a little while, etc. Just a summary of what the judge composition is enough. The list of key decisions can be pretty long, but the fundamental decisions must be summarized. For instance, as a new reader, I was totally surprised about the attitude of the court towards starving people in the UK vs Ireland case - that was informative and surprising to me. So those key decisions need to be mentioned upfront. As is the fact that it takes forever to get a case heard. Yes, they have a nice building, lots of honorable people judging, but decisions take for ever to arrive and some decisions are surprising to the person on the street. Overall, I think this article is less than informative fropm the "action" angle anyway. History2007 (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The section now titled "Jurisprudence" is totally haphazard and random. It does not provide any context, in particular the historical impact of the court's decisions. In my opinin, this section should be deleted completely. And, in accordance with standard Wikipedia policies, any section of that type should be based on secondary sources, not on the Wikipedia Editors' views of what may or may not constitute a significant decision. The selection appears to have been made by Wikipedia editors: there are no citations to secondary sources, for example to scholarly articles that review the court's work. Further, I agree with the comment below that criticism of the court's decisions (in particular some recent ones) should be included.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the corresponding article in the French version of Wikipedia. Its jurisprudence section (see ) is well organized, but still suffers from not relying on secondary sources. Unless secondary sources can be found, I would still favor deleting the current (English-version) Jurisprudence section entirely. Alternatively, it might be acceptable to rewrite it using the French version as a model.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater now. The section can use touch up, but if the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide info, why delete it. I learned a lot by reading that section. So it is useful. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that, as it stands, it is Original Research and therefore not consistent with Wikipedia policies. It needs a major re-write, based on secondary sources, not a minor touch-up.  Please look at the French-language version: that seems much better to me.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be many things, but it is NOT original research because it has nothing original in it. No conclusions are drawn from the cases. The French are, of course, always assumed as superior, but that does not force the deletion of useful information in English. History2007 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is Original Research in the Wikipedia sense, because it is an analysis of a primary source, instead of being based on secondary sources, please se WP:PRIMARY, which says:--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also WP:SYN. I have now added an appropriate tag.  I'm not sure what your source is for the statement that "the French are always assumed as superior", but that is certainly not my case.  Regarding this particular topic, I find that the organization of the case-law part of the French-language article is sensible, because it is based on the articles of the Convention.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the right tag. However, it was not a [{WP:OR]] tag - that would not have applied. I will find sources for them in a few days. It is easy, the sources are in the links themselves. As for French superiority, that was per WP:well known, as I am sure you will agree. History2007 (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to support deleting the so-called jurisprudence section. There would be a subjectivity problem with having a list of notable judgements in an article but few of the cases cited would make it to such a list. Most are just hobby-horse cases. There should certainly be a jurisprudence but what's there a present doesn't form the basis of one. I can't see how it could be described as useful when it has no coherence. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me say how it was useful to me. I had considered this court as useless until I read here that some Greek-Cypriot refugee got $1 million (after 20 years) as a result of it. I was also surprised about their decision about the 5 techniques on people. How else would I have got that information? History2007 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You could have gotten that information from the Court's web site. They publish press releases and all their cases are available on the web.  As Blue-Haired has stated, the current list of cases is just a list of what some particular Wikipedia Editor thought interesting.  There is no systematic approach, and the section, as it stands, blatantly violated Wikipedia policies.  Nor does it give a balanced and sensible view of what the Court does or does not do.  Does anybody other than History2007 object to deletion of the current version (I presume we all agree that a version based on proper secondary sources would be useful)?--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Did you just say that I could have got the information from the court's website? Then what do I need Wikipedia for? And exactly which policies have been "blatantly violated"? However, discussion on what cases need to be included needs to take place, and the best place for that may be a forum on its own rather than this one. Wikipedia has many "lists" and this should be just one more such list. I made the page and asked for opinions there about what is notable. History2007 (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You need Wikipedia to get reliable, verifiable, summaries of secondary and tertiary resources. The current list is some Editor's or Editors' interpretation of what is significant.  The current section violates WP:OR because the current section does not cite secondary source: it is a hodge-podge summary of primary sources.  See WP:PRIMARY, I have cited one bit above, but see also:--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. Does anybody other than History2007 object to deletion of the current "jurisdiction" section?--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And exactly what is the reasoning for the deletion of the new summary? I have not seen one. There is no evaluative claim. It just points to a main article. It does not include much of a list, and it must be pointed out that all content in Wikipedia is based on the decisions of editors. That is how Wikipedia grows. Moreover, your hodge-podge claim is no longer valid because I just added references that list key decisions, so it is not purely based on editor ideas, but what references call key. That argument is over. So there is no reasoning I have seen that justifies the deletion of a referenced summary section, while an unreferenced architecture section remains. The summary has 3 paragraphs and 9 references. Various references provided explicitly mention list of key decisions which are not based on any Wikipedia editor's opinion. It is the most referenced piece of the article. There is no reason or policy that justifies its deletion. History2007 (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had not noticed that you had replaced the section with a new summary, and moved the list to a stand-alone article. I apologize for that oversight.  I will comment on the stand-alone article.  Regarding the summary as it stands now, I agree that it should not be delted.  But I think that the last sentence should be deleted because it does not cite any secondary or tertiary sources.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, that is how Wikipedia works. Last sentence: I will look for a ref, or why don't you look for it? Is it not easier to do than talk and argue? History2007 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did look for references that contained analysis of the court's work and/or lists of key cases, but I didn't find any after a quick search. And I have other priorities so I cannot put much time into that search right now.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Russia
The article currently contains the following sentence:


 * "Nearly one third of the cases in the court are filed against Russia."

Not only is this not sourced, it doesn't indicate over what time-span it applies, and even if it were true, it contains over whether the cases were meritorious or not. I'm going to remove it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Found this source tho "Denisov added that the number of cases lodged at the ECHR was on the rise, with almost 30,000 of the current 112,000 rights complaints coming from Russia. Of these cases, however, only a fraction will ever seen by the court."  This might be a better thing to mention in the article... "At the start of this year, the court had 119,300 pending cases. More than half of the applications had been lodged against one of four countries: Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and Romania."  BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The ECHR and the ECJ
$the whole paragraph needs to be re-written as EU already became signatory part of the ECHR as of 1 dec 2009 after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.148.114 (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, lets go through this line by line:
 * "The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is not related to the European Court of Human Rights."

So far so good.
 * "However, since all EU states are members of the Council of Europe and have signed the Convention on Human Rights, there are concerns about consistency in case law between the two courts."

The concern for the inconsistency is that since Amsterdam (?) the EU treaties included a reference to the Convention and in theory both court could give differing interpretations. ":Therefore, the ECJ refers to the case-law of the Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU's legal system." Using "therefore" here is ungrammatical. In any event this statement is simply NOT true.
 * "Even though its members have joined, the European Union itself has not, as it did not have competence to do so under previous treaties."

There's no notwithstanding or "even though" about it, the European Union has not joined because it did not have competence to do so under previous treaties. Period as the Americans would say.
 * "However, EU institutions are bound under article 6 of the EU treaty of Nice to respect human rights under the Convention."

I'm pretty sure Nice didn't even have that many articles.
 * "Furthermore, since the Treaty of Lisbon has taken effect on 1 December 2009, the EU is expected to sign the Convention."

Using "furthermore" here is ungrammatical. Very badly worded but true, more or less.
 * "This would make the Court of Justice bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rights and thus be subject to its human rights law, resolving this way the issue of conflicting case law"

No it won't! This is just a complete fallacy. There was a lot of nonsense that went around about the Lisbon Treaty, but it just wasn't true. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Voting record
Does anyone have any idea of data about the voting record of the judges here. There were some interesting (and totally embarrassing) facts in the US supreme court voting record data. I wonder what the EU data holds. History2007 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Basic Details lacking
how many judges sit? How long? How are applications made? I didn't read the WHOLE article, but for goodness sakes, what a terrible job of reporting basic details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.83.183 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Member States comply..."?
At the end of the section Procedure and decisions, there is the statement "In practice Member States comply with the judgments by the Court." This is followed a reference to the book The Essentials of Human Rights. I find this statement of compliance surprising.

Elsewhere in the article there is the mention of the large number of repetitive cases "where the Court has already delivered a judgement finding a similar violation" which suggests to me quite a lot of non-compliance.

Also in the article: "...Russia, a country held to be in violation of the Convention by the Court in many decisions..."

I have just watched a television programme (Rights Gone Wrong? transmitted in the UK, on BBC2, Wednesday 14th March 2012, billed under News & Factual) which stated that many countries with bad human rights records, and who are members, basically mostly ignored ECHR rulings.

A direct quote from the book would be useful to clarify exactly what the book says.

Does anyone know whether the book can be treated as a reliable source? FrankSier (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Court of Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219175036/http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/Hoffmann_2009_JSB_Annual_Lecture_Universality_of_Human_Rights.pdf to http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/Hoffmann_2009_JSB_Annual_Lecture_Universality_of_Human_Rights.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103202456/http://portal.coe.ge/enews/EkyVZkVEkFDKrxApAw.php to http://portal.coe.ge/enews/EkyVZkVEkFDKrxApAw.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Protocol 14 reforms
Shouldn't this sentence:

Protocol 14 also provides that when a three judge committee decides on the merits of a case, the judge elected to represent that state is no longer a compulsory member of this committee.

be like this:

Protocol 14 also provides that when a three judge committee decides on the merits of a case, the judge elected to represent that case is no longer a compulsory member of this committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:984:E122:1:D592:519B:2ACC:22A7 (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * European Court of Human Rights- Av. de l'Europe.jpg
 * Piece of Berlin Wall in front of the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg.jpg

Unbalanced
Article has a long list of criticism, but hardly any reference to support for ECtHR decisions and their beneficial effect on human rights protection. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You are free the expand the section "Support". Nevertheless, the court has become increasingly controversial during the last 10-15 years, including in Western Europe, with growing backlash against it; and this has to be clearly reflected in the article, and not whitewashed. 62.231.113.139 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IP editor: the statement that the court is considered the "most effective international human rights court in the world" is supported by three scholarly sources, but you haven't provided any that disagree with that assessment. Also, Wikipedia focuses on assessments of the court that are published in peer-reviewed publications, rather than opinion pieces which are inherently less reliable. I did remove content that was unsourced or published in opinion pieces, because it lacks WP:DUE compared to peer-reviewed publications. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocking websites in Russia
It remains to be seen whether it should be added to "Impacts" or "non-implemented cases". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)