Implementation and Covid-19
/by George Stafford, EIN Director
EIN Director George Stafford
Covid-19 has placed a significant strain on the human rights community across Europe. With limited resources, NGOs are struggling to react to the virus and all of its consequences. At the same time, Covid-19 has had a serious impact on the implementation monitoring process in Strasbourg.
Below is a summary of the main impacts of the virus so far – and some reflections about what they mean for the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
NGOs stretched thin
Source: shearman.com
The coronavirus has presented European civil society with a huge challenge. The impact of the virus itself has led to very serious human rights situations – such as terrible conditions in prisons, as one example. Meanwhile, the reactions of governments have often constituted threats to human rights in themselves – ranging from containment measures that are not compliant with international standards, to full-blown assaults on the country’s constitutional order. All of this leaves aside the personal challenges of the virus, including family tragedies, ill-health and the closure of offices.
In these circumstances, the commitment shown by many colleagues in maintaining their implementation work has been extraordinary. We know of a number of EIN network members and partners who have been overrun by additional virus-related challenges, but have chosen to address them in addition to their other work (including implementation activities), rather than instead of them.
It is a testament to the passion and professionalism of our network that it has been able to continue its work on ECHR implementation, despite the challenges of the virus. Indeed, this year has seen more Rule 9s than the same period in any previous year. We continue to be inspired by the hard work and dedication of our colleagues from across Europe.
Delays in the implementation monitoring process
Another impact of the coronavirus on our work has been the changes to the June CM/DH meeting. The meeting did not take place in person and there was no oral debate. CM Decisions were issued in only around half of the cases scheduled to be considered, which were those cases where the government agreed with the proposed Decision put forward by the Council of Europe Secretariat. The other half of the cases were postponed to an additional ad hoc meeting scheduled for 1-3 September. The usual September meeting was delayed to 29 September–1 October. EIN repeatedly pushed for this development to be properly communicated to civil society, in advance of the June meeting.
The reasons for the delay which have been provided to us are as follows. It is said that it was impossible to hold the meeting in-person, due to the restrictions on movement and gatherings in France imposed at the time, as well as international travel. Meanwhile, certain member states objected to the meeting being carried out over video call, because of alleged security concerns about the privacy of the communications.
The delay is very unfortunate for those eagerly awaiting Decisions or Resolutions from the Committee of Ministers, requiring important changes to take place. To take one example of many, campaigners for the release of Turkish philanthropist Osman Kavala will have to wait until September for a decision requiring that he be set free, whilst he remains imprisoned on false charges designed to punish him for his human rights activities.
EIN will continue to monitor the situation closely in regard to the postponement of any future meetings. We will call clearly for the CM/DH meeting to take place whenever this is possible, and request that any future delays to be communicated to civil society well in advance of them taking place.
Government reporting delayed
Turning again to CM/DH meetings, we have seen numerous government Action Plans and Action Reports which state that it is not possible for the government concerned to make progress with implementation of a judgment or properly report on it, due to the virus.
There are without doubt many cases where proper activities or reporting have been curtailed by the deadly challenge of Covid-19. It continues to be a huge strain on governments and public servants.
Nevertheless, many of the cases where governments have pointed most strongly to the virus as a reason for inactivity, are those where there has been a failure to take steps to implement the judgment for a very long period of time. In the next briefing to representatives of the Committee of Ministers, EIN will raise this issue and ask the Committee of Ministers to properly examine such explanations when they are given, in the context of each particular case.
There is no way to know how long Covid-19 will continue for and what impact it will eventually have. For the time being, we send our warmest wishes to all of those who have been touched by the virus. We will be happy to respond to any of your enquiries about the impact of the virus on ECHR implementation.