User:Falcohawk777

Heading text
Addressed to: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Addressed to: COUNCIL OF EUROPE

PETITION

Dear President of the European Parliament, Dear President of the Council of Europe, dear members of the respective Institutions!The Reason of my letter addressed to the Institutions that you represent,has to do with an request for a change in the law referred to in Article 2 of the ECHR, so that this Article will not conflicted with other articles of the ECHR (Article 6), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights held by the General Assembly of the United Nations or the Constitution of the Countries that have ratified this Convention. This Regulation also prevents the subjective abuses of the enforcement law, which in some cases have led to irreparable consequences. Most criminal codes of the contracting countries have declared that no one may be punished for an act which is foreseen not only as a crime, but also penalties and the measures envisaged, while in art.2 of ECHR is quoted: 2)Right to life 1)Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2)Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: a)in defence of any person from unlawful violence; b)in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained..?! c)in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection..?! Let's start with the logical-legal analysis in chronological order referred to the paragraph B and C In parentheses I wish to mention that not only in Europe, but in the most of the world, the death penalty is abolished not only as a "barbaric act", even if it is applied by the "State", but i think that is in contrast to the formal logic. I make the analogy with the Civil Code. It is known that the transfer of ownership of an object is a right of the owner, ie, given or taken awaits  whom has the right of property. This should also work in formal logic for the capital punishment, the consequences of which are fatal, especially in the case of "mistakes," mistakes that not few times have happened. Thus, the right to take the life,theorically i think it is the God right ! However, also this argument is out of the context of Article 2, point B, because it has to do with the death penalty given by the competent courts in places where this penalty for certain crimes may be provided as type and measurement of condemnation, instead here we have(2/2-b) a capital execution by law enforcement during the arrest or in preventing escape from prison of a person convicted of law. 1) the capital execution in the case that the arrest, is illegal, because: α) excludes the presumption of innocence, β) is incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR to legal process, because we have a sentence with the death penalty without a verdict by the court, giving these attributes of the law enforcement, γ) encourage abuses and no matter how like  the quantity , but the gravity of the consequences that are irreparable .2) during the execution of an convicted person by the court because of his escape from the penitentiary institutions , we have again a nonsense where on one side the escape is a crime for which there is a penalty that applies and  add the first conviction to the person who is serving a prison sentence, by the other hand we have "the death penalty" without a verdict  from the court ,because of  the inability of the law enforcement  to prevent the fugitive. The subject could be sentenced to imprisonment for a serious crime either a less serious offense, so his death without a trial is illegal and inhuman. The prisons are not "playground room" so it is absurd to think that human nature can accept this state of isolation in joy and not groped to take advantage of any opportunity to “gain” freedom. The inefficiency of the penitentiary institutions about the security measures to prevent the escape of detainees,does not give anyone the right that subjectively and unconstitutionally to take the life of the fugitives. I always do the joke that if a fugitive runs faster than a cop, this is not a reason to condemn him to death. Article 2, paragraph 1, is declared that life is protected by law, Article 6 talks  about  the right to a fair trial, and Article 2/2 points b and c restricts that right. I mean these two provisions are in conflict with each other. A right exist or not, the right restricted doesn't have sense. The right to life is protected by law, but ..... “But”→means subjectivity and the subjectivity in such cases, as i have mentioned above has irreparable consequences. 3) Also in paragraph C of Article 2/2 of the ECHR is stated that life can be inflicted in case of insurrection or riot, according to the law. At beginning i like to say that the riots and the insurrections are provided in the penal code of most countries with severe penalties, but almost never with death penaltie, so there is no logic to clarify the measurement of the penalty for a offense, and at time that this crime is ongoing, applies further punishment, for more "the death penaltie", which not only is not foreseen as a punishment for the crime mentioned, but is executed without being subjected to a judicial process. Also in this case we allow and we promote the subjectivity and dictatorial regimes. . The right of rebellion (the right or the duty of revolution as an individual or Collective right) has its origins about 300 years BC, in China (Zhou dynasty). It is this theory that justified the French Revolution and also the American Revolution, giving to these events a positive historical value and not to treat it as a "coup d’etat". There are countries in the world, but also in Europe, where the representatives of the state that abusing without limit, selling the property of the state if they were owners, making “slave” the population by paying under the cost of work done, putting insufferable taxes and while the people rebels, it is called a riot or insurrection, that it justifies the killing of its citizens claiming their rights? What happened of the rights and freedoms of citizens, the right to protest which constitute most of the international conventions? Again here there is an “but” ...?? What happened of Universal Declaration of Human Rights,held by the United Nations General Assembly that they speaking of the violation of dignity, let alone to the serious acts of “those” who are in power? What happened with the bill of right by James Madison?? A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference(T.J) When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty(T.J) Personally i am a citizen of a country(even if I’m resident in Italy-Rome), where the government by using "the legal argument" kills all those who protest ,and i believe that you are also aware of what happened on January 21, 2011 in Albania, in where they  are  killed four protesters. In conclusion, i believe that Article 2/2, point b and c are at odds with the universal human right, that of life, and also of Article 6 of the ECHR, so I think it should be repealed.

Yours faithfully, Att.Sokol HASANI