Whole Life Sentences and the European Court of Human Rights

It seems that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that ‘whole-life’ sentences, where a crime is judged to be so heinous, or the criminal so dangerous that they should never be released but die in prison, breach a criminal’s human rights.

I struggle to understand where from and how the Court could make such a determination. The Court exists solely on the legal basis of the European Convention on Human Rights – and on no other foundation. Indeed, it was the Convention which established the Court in the first place, rather than the other way round.

I’ve read and re-read the Convention in search of an answer:

Article 1 says everyone is entitled to the freedoms enshrined in the convention

Article 2 enshrines the right to life.

Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading punishment

Article 4 prohibits slavery

Article 5 states that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person, save in the case of the      lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court.

Article 6 covers the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial

Article 7 prohibits punishment if no law has been broken

Article 8 deals with the much abused right to a private and family life

Article 9 provides for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10 the freedom of expression, (which is why I defy the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice  and continue to express my personal thoughts through this blog).

Article 11 confers the freedom of assembly and association

Article 12 gives the right to marry

Article 13 provides for an effective remedy for violation of convention rights

Article 14 prohibits discrimination

Article 15 allows for the derogation of certain rights in time of national emergency

Article 16 allows for the restriction of political activities by aliens

Article 17 prohibits abuse of the rights set out in the convention

Article 18 limits the restrictions that can be placed on convention rights

Article 19 establishes the Court of Human Rights

Articles 20 to 51 deal with the administration of the Court

Articles 52 to 59 are miscellaneous provisions

There are also a number of Protocols, the first deals with the protection of property, the right to an education, and the right to free elections.

The forth Protocol deals with imprisonment for debt, the prohibition of expulsion of aliens and freedom of movement

Protocol 6 abolishes the death penalty except in time of war

Protocol 7 provides for the right of appeal and for compensation for wrongful conviction, for the equality of spouses and prohibits punishment twice for the same offence

Protocol 12 is a general prohibition against discrimination

Protocol 13 abolishes the death penalty without exception.

AND THAT’S IT!

How, how, how can any of that be translated into barring whole-life prison sentences? The convention contains not one word on the subject.

It seems to me that now no signatory to the convention makes use of torture, no longer executes criminals, and confers on all the right to be educated, partake in free elections, speak their mind (within limits) to marry and to have a family and be generally free of persecution that the Court has b……r all to do, and so makes things up just to fill the time, and justify their position and status.