Re Application No. 202/56 (X. v. Belgium).

378The Individual in International Law — Human Rights and Freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — No prima facie Violation of Convention — Principle of “Legality of Crimes” and Non-retroactivity of Penalties (Article 7 (1)) — Crimes under International Law — Collaboration With the Enemy.

The Individual in International Law — Human Rights and Freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — No prima facie Violation of Convention — Right to Freedom of Expression (Article 10) — Freedom to Practise as a Lawyer Not Protected — Right to Legal Aid (Article 6) — Civil Action.

The Individual in International Law — Position of — Human Rights and Freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — Personal Nature of Applications — Effect of Death of Applicant — Meaning of “Victim” in Article 25 of Convention — Rights of Indirect Victims — Position of Heirs or Personal Representatives — Inadmissibility of Application by Legatee of Chattels.

328The Individual in International Law — Human Rights and Freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — Rights and Freedoms Guaranteed in Convention — Right to Enter a Country Not Guaranteed — Right to Custody of an Infant Not Guaranteed — Acts of Individuals Not Cognizable by Commission — Commission Unable to Hear Allegations of Error in Decisions of National Courts — Allegation of Denial of Justice — Need for Exhaustion of Local Remedies.

The Individual in International Law — Human Rights and Freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — Application Against the Saar — Effect of Integration of the Saar into German Federal Republic — Procedure of Working Group Under Rule 45 of Rules of Procedure of Commission.

388The Individual in International Law — Human Rights and Freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — Abuse of Right of Petition — Failure to Provide Any Details.

The Individual in International Law — Human Rights and Freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — Application Against State Not Member of Council of Europe and Not Having Signed or Ratified Convention.

The Individual in International Law — Human Rights and Freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — Rights and Freedoms Guaranteed in Convention — Right to a Nationality Not Guaranteed.

State Responsibility — For Breaches of Treaty Obligations — European Convention for Protection of Human Rights, 1950 — European Commission of Human Rights — Individual Applications — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — When Remedies Not Exhausted — Municipal Remedy Available on Certain Conditions — Grounds for Non-Exhaustion.

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — European Commission of Human Rights — Right to a fair and public hearing (Article 6 (1)) — Reservation by respondent Government — Right of accused person to defend himself (Article 6 (3) (c)) — Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation (Article 6 (3) (a)) — Conviction for offence other than that charged — Right to adequate facilities for preparation of defence (Article 6 (3) (b)) — Right to consult case-file — Function of Commission in determining admissibility — Travaux préparatoires.

Improving the mechanism for the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms is a constant task for the legislator in any state. In scientific research, when analyzing existing Russian legislation, law enforcement practice, foreign experience, researchers justify the need to adjust Russian legislation and law enforcement. Some proposals are further reflected in the legislation. New challenges to the Russian state and society require additional measures to improve the activities of human rights commissioners (ombudsmen). These persons actively participate in the implementation of the human rights state function. The purpose of the study is to identify the features of legal regulation and the functioning of the Federal Commissioner for Human Rights in Russia, the implementation of its functions, and the determination of the most acceptable scientific views on improving its status, taking into account modern Russian realities and positive foreign experience. The methodological basis of the study was general scientific methods, as well as special legal methods of cognition, special importance is attached to the comparative legal method. We concluded that the recognition by the human rights commissioners (ombudsmen) of an important place in the state extrajudicial mechanism for the protection of human rights is not without grounds. When changing legal norms, it is necessary to take into account that the functionality of these persons is limited due to the specifics of their status, as well as the subsidiary of their role in protecting human and civil rights and freedoms. These persons contribute to the restoration of the violated right mainly through interaction with public authorities. Consequently, proposals to empower the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation with unusual functions should be assessed for acceptability from the standpoint of the specifics of its status and the importance of ombudsmen in the Russian human rights mechanism.

Subject of the research. The article considers two levels in the mechanism of protection of human rights and freedoms: national and supranational. National includes both judicial and non-judicial methods of protection. The supranational level is represented by universal (global) and regional ways. The purpose of the research is to identify an effective mechanism for the protection of human rights that can replace the mechanism of protection provided by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, which has ceased to be valid for citizens of the Russian Federation. Research methods are the formal-legal method, analysis, synthesis, formallogical method.The main results. Theoretically, a particular citizen can use any of the national and supranational mechanisms for the protection of human rights. However, the nature of their action and the procedure for gaining access to these mechanisms are different, which affects their effectiveness and the readiness of a person to turn to one or another method of protection. Among supranational mechanisms, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 has a unique status: on the one hand, this document is “a symbol of the moral consensus of all states, the starting point for the creation of a modern human rights regime”; on the other hand, it is an act-declaration, the application of which in specific legal relations and the protection of human rights with its help are problematic. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 12/16/1966 provides for the establishment of a Human Rights Committee that exercises control over the provisions of the Covenant through a system of reports. Reports on measures taken to implement the rights provided for by the Covenant, as well as on non-fulfillment of their obligations under the Covenant by other States Parties, are submitted by States Parties. The mechanism of reports, however, is not reliable enough - there are states that ignore it.Regional Conventions are rightly considered the most effective means of protecting human rights. The implementation of the provisions of the Conventions is ensured by the activities of supranational judicial bodies, to which the applicant can file a complaint. The conditions for applying to such a court, its territorial proximity, the possibility of executing court decisions make this method of protection as accessible as possible. Among the national remedies, first of all, it should be noted the activity of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to protect the constitutional rights of citizens. The provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the section on human rights are almost identical, often written in the same phrases. But, despite the number of coincidences in the designation of human rights and freedoms, the main thing is not the designation (this is a declaration) of a specific right or freedom, but how they are applied and what is the practice of their protection (interpretation) by the Constitutional Court at the national level and the Convention on the supranational. It is here that the understanding of “identical” formulations can differ, and the question of who is better: a national or supranational body protects a particular human right, becomes debatable. It should also be remembered about the very meaning of supranational protection as an opportunity to receive protection from one's own state, albeit a subsidiary one. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that in the absence of the possibility of applying to the ECHR, a citizen will be able to receive protection in the Constitutional Court without prejudice to the outcome of such protection.Considering that the protection of human rights is, first of all, the activity of national courts of first instance, consideration by the courts of administrative, civil and criminal cases, in cases where it is carried out in full compliance with the norms of procedural legislation, is able to fully ensure the protection of the rights and human freedoms. To do this, the courts have all the necessary tools, you just need the ability and desire to use them.Among the internal structures for monitoring the observance of human rights, a number of state and public bodies can be distinguished - the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, the police, the prosecutor's office and others. However, it is not possible to attribute them to the effective bodies for the protection of human rights.Conclusions. The existing national and supranational mechanisms for the protection of human rights, in their effectiveness, are not able to fully compensate for the loss of the opportunity for citizens of the Russian Federation to file a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.

Sergio Vieira de Mello

The Quest for Information Privacy in Africa: A Review Essay

Today, the United Nations plays a leading role in the development of international law and cooperation among the world's states. Member states have pledged to realize their rights and fulfill their obligations under the UN Charter. The main objectives of the UN are envisaged in Article 1 of the Charter, where the key provision relating to human rights is reflected in paragraph 3 of Article 1. According to it, the UN aims to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of race, sex, language or religion [1]. As it can be seen, the Charter only calls on states parties to promote the protection of human rights, without establishing clear obligations to protect and guarantee them. Since 2014, i.e. since Russia launched its war against Ukraine, the aggressor has not stopped committing crimes against our country and our people. Russia's actions encroach not only on the sovereignty of our state, but also on human rights and freedoms. Under such circumstances, the international community cannot stand aside from these events. Many international human rights organizations have offices in Ukraine. Among them is the UN. On 31.07.2014, the Government of Ukraine and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights signed an agreement on the deployment of a short-term UN human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine. The legal status of UN monitoring missions in legal science has not been the subject of a separate study. Certain aspects of the activities and competence of such missions have been considered in the works of such scholars as I.A. Shumilo [14], F. Megre [13], K. Boyle [12] and others, which are devoted to the coverage of international mechanisms for the protection of human rights and freedoms, the status of the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council. Therefore, the task set out in this article is to analyze and establish the specifics of the legal status of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission (hereinafter - the Mission), in particular, the one established for Ukraine, and the limits of the Mission's powers under the UN Charter, UN General Assembly resolutions, and international agreements between UN agencies and Ukraine. Therefore, the relevance of this article is beyond doubt. It has been established that the purpose of the Mission is to facilitate cooperation between the Government of Ukraine and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (hereinafter - OHCHR)[2] and it plays the role of a subsidiary mechanism for the protection of human rights and freedoms within the UN. The conclusions of the mission will undoubtedly serve as a convincing additional evidence base for Ukraine in international judicial and other bodies in protecting its interests and establishing the guilt of the Russian Federation for actions committed against our country.