![]() 1 to the Convention and of Article 8 of the Convention”. The applicants submitted that “this amounted to continuing violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. Armenia”) claimed that they were prevented from returning to the Azerbaijani district of Lachin, from where they had been forced to flee in 1992 after Armenian occupation, and thus they were unable to enjoy their properties located there and that they had not received any compensation for their wastages. On 6 April 2005 six Azerbaijani IDPs brought the case against Armenia (“Chiragov and Others v. On the basis of a legal analysis of the Court’s judgments, the author disposes that the Court is not only authorized to examine human rights violations during armed conflicts, and to hold a question of state accountability, but also recognize a fact of aggression of one state against another. The article analyzes the cases of the European Court of Human Rights related to human rights violations during the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This in turn allows the Court to conclude that the term “jurisdiction” extends to the territory of sovereign states under occupation and thereby generates the responsibility of the occupying country. ![]() This issue is of fundamental interest in the context of inter-state territorial conflicts, when one of a party to a conflict actually exercises effective control over a part of a territory of another sovereign state. whether or not the acts which are claimed to constitute a violation of the Convention are included in the scope of the term “jurisdiction” as used in Article 1 ECHR”. As Kirchner argues, “the decision whether or not the Court will have jurisdiction in such cases will to a large extend depend on the question, whether or not Article 1 ECHR is applicable, i.e. Moreover, dealing with the cases from the Srebrenica massacre to the international military operation in Iraq, the Court examined events during military activities of state-parties of ECHR outside their sovereign territory. However, this provision does not mean that the Court jurisdiction does not cover this kind of human rights violations. Unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC) and ad hoc tribunals the European Court of Human Rights was not created to deal with mass violations of human rights often committed during armed conflicts. 1 The general review of the almost 60-year-old activity of the Court allows concluding that this supranational body has been mostly examined individual appeals of violations of civil and political rights, afforded just satisfaction to injured party in cases of violations of the ECHR or the additional protocols. In accordance with Article 34 of the ECHR, “the Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organization or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto”. The European Court of Human Rights, a Strasbourg-based international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) deals with individual cases.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |