The newest issue of the European Human Rights Law Review has been published (no. 5 of 2009). It includes several ECHR-related contributions:
* James A. Goldston, Achievements and Challenges—Insights from the Strasbourg Experience for Other International Courts
Discusses aspects of the procedure and practice of the European Court of Human Rights and looks at what the Court may be able to offer to legal and human rights communities across the world. Examines: (1) the importance of patience and persistence in the process of establishing human rights procedural norms; (2) the Court’s flexible approach, highlighting its treatment of cases involving racial violence and discrimination against the Roma; (3) the importance of managing expectations and forward planning to meet increased demand in applications; (4) issues of transparency and accessibility; and (4) the execution of judgments.
* Peter W. Edge, Sentencing the religious defendant
Discusses the role of religion in the sentencing process of criminal trials. Contends that religious interests have significance in sentencing and that European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence can negatively impact on the freedom to sentence religious defendants. Considers: (1) the manifestation of religion as a factor leading to a reduced sentence; and (2) situations where a defendant’s offending is a manifestation of religion and whose faith is sufficiently strong to resist rehabilitation. Considers how to balance the weight to be given to religious concerns in sentencing by national courts.
* Achilles C. Emilianides, Do Minimum Age Requirements Violate the Right to Stand for Election under the European Convention on Human Rights?
Argues that the imposition of minimum age requirements for persons seeking to stand for elections breaches the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Protocol 1 art.3. Discusses: (1) the active and passive aspects of the right to stand for election; (2) the specific right to free elections; (3) whether minimum age requirements breach Protocol 1 art.3, either on its own or in conjunction with art.14; (4) the need to establish that there is no reasonable and objective justification for the differing treatment regarding minimum age requirements; and (5) the scope of the “legislature ” under Protocol 1 art.3.
The articles can be found on Westlaw.
