The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, more commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights, has just celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary.
Concluded in the aftermath of the Second World War to prevent the return of totalitarianism, xenophobia, discrimination and anti-Semitism, this exceptional instrument, based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the true embodiment of European values. It now unites 46 nations.
Its unique feature, unparalleled anywhere else in the world, is that it guarantees individual rights vis-à-vis states, with every individual able to bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights, which is tasked with ensuring that these rights are respected. It has already dealt with more than a million cases.
International justice remains the civilised world's only weapon against the worst crimes. We have known this since the Nuremberg trials. We are reminded of it with the International Criminal Court. Russia, which was expelled from the Council of Europe in September 2022, will be tried by the European Court for the abduction of children, torture and crimes committed in Ukraine prior to that date, and Turkey, the country with the most indictments, must take this into account. It is evident that the United States would really benefit from such a body, and that it is unacceptable to dictatorial regimes.
There has been much criticism of some of the Court's decisions, which are said to interpret the Convention too broadly, particularly on security issues. The ‘Brexiters’ promised to suspend their membership of the Convention, and nine Member States* of the European Union have publicly spoken out against some of its rulings on the grounds that they hinder effective immigration or security policy.
But no one has ever gone so far as to challenge the provisions of the Convention. Critics should specify which individual rights should be restricted and take the initiative to propose concrete additional protocols or official reservations, which they would then defend before the public. No State has dared to do so until now, since the values laid down in the Convention are symbolic of the rule of law, i.e. respect for individuals and their freedoms. These values are enshrined in European law and treaties.
The doctrine of the “living instrument” developed by the Court, which has taken up new ethical and environmental issues, should also mean it can better consider security requirements. This comes at a time when Europe faces Russia, in a war - for the time being hybrid - together with migration issues that could potentially increase tensions and play to the advantage of extremists.
However, this remarkable achievement, which limits state abuses and protects individual rights, is more essential now more than ever to a democracy that is increasingly being challenged the world over.
It is a treasure that Europeans can be proud of and that must be preserved at all costs. Whatever the future may hold, they are accountable to history for the survival and promotion of this concept and this system, which protect, defend and exalt the human person in the face of nationalism, racism and reasons of State.
*Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic
