McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

Which is after all a basic human right.  Whether or not the McCanns have been denied that right by the Portuguese courts of appeal is for the European Court to determine.
There would appear to be a strenuous defence of the interpretation made of, in particular, the McCann right to the presumption of innocence as laid down by the highest Portuguese appeal court by some posters here.
Certainly the McCann right to present a case in defence of their human rights has been fought in spirit by what I find is the resentful tone of many of the posts on this thread.  Which I find extraordinary given that we are a forum that could be expected to stand for the rights of the individual v the abuse of States.

Congratulations Davel on your meticulous research giving examples of defence of the principals outlined by the cases which have been resolved by the European Court in the favour of the rights of individuals.

There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.

[carlymichelle]

There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.

exactly  g  unit  why are the mcanns   so inportant  to some??  it  was their  actions that  lead to  all  this  nearly   13 years  ago

[Venturi Swirl]

There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.

What right does he have to base a whole second career on smearing the parents of a missing child and trying to convince anyone who will listen thst she died in that apartment?

[G-Unit]

What right does he have to base a whole second career on smearing the parents of a missing child and trying to convince anyone who will listen thst she died in that apartment?

He seems to have had the right to inform the public of the details and conclusions of the investigation up to 10th September 2007.

[Mr Gray]

There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.

We are, well aware there are two rights to balance... It's what the, SC did as I've said many times  .The question is did they get the balance right... Based on other cars from the ECHR. I would say they didnt

[Brietta]

There are two sides in this case. You see the rights of the McCanns as paramount, but are ignoring the rights of another individual; Goncalo Amaral.

I believe the McCanns are contesting the abrogation of their human rights by the Portuguese legal system:  in my opinion Amaral is very small fry indeed in that process.

[Robittybob1]

I believe the McCanns are contesting the abrogation of their human rights by the Portuguese legal system:  in my opinion Amaral is very small fry indeed in that process.

Who defines what is a "human right"?  Is the presumption of innocence a human right? Yes it is.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
"Article 11.
 
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."

I think it odd to argue that this human right did not apply to the McCanns as they were not charged with a penal offence at the time.

[Brietta]

Who defines what is a "human right"?  Is the presumption of innocence a human right? Yes it is.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
"Article 11.
 
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."

I think it odd to argue that this human right did not apply to the McCanns as they were not charged with a penal offence at the time.

My opinion is that the Portuguese appeal court judges' ruling exceeded their remit leaving the McCanns an open goal allowing an appeal to the European Court and giving their legal team an exceptionally strong case to argue on their behalf that their human rights have been violated.

[Robittybob1]

My opinion is that the Portuguese appeal court judges' ruling exceeded their remit leaving the McCanns an open goal allowing an appeal to the European Court and giving their legal team an exceptionally strong case to argue on their behalf that their human rights have been violated.

Even if they weren't charged there is Article 12 that backs the McCanns.
"Article 12.
 
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

What about free speech?
"Article 19.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

[G-Unit]

I believe the McCanns are contesting the abrogation of their human rights by the Portuguese legal system:  in my opinion Amaral is very small fry indeed in that process.

According to Davel Amaral is very important in the process.

[G-Unit]

Who defines what is a "human right"?  Is the presumption of innocence a human right? Yes it is.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
"Article 11.
 
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."

I think it odd to argue that this human right did not apply to the McCanns as they were not charged with a penal offence at the time.

Nobody said they weren't entitled to the presumption of innocence. What the courts did say was that it wasn't interfered with by Amaral, as the McCanns claimed.

[Mr Gray]

According to Davel Amaral is very important in the process.

Amaral himself isn't but what he said is

[Mr Gray]

Nobody said they weren't entitled to the presumption of innocence. What the courts did say was that it wasn't interfered with by Amaral, as the McCanns claimed.

That's not what the SC said according to this sunmarry from the, PJGA blogspot..



1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.


So it seems the SC said they were not entitled to the POI because the investigation hadn't found them innocent... Which is a bizarre thing to say

[G-Unit]

That's not what the SC said according to this sunmarry from the, PJGA blogspot..



1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.


So it seems the SC said they were not entitled to the POI because the investigation hadn't found them innocent... Which is a bizarre thing to say

As I've pointed out, the McCanns had to prove their case. Their lawyer argued that the archiving dispatch was equal to an acquittal, which is wrong. It is her claim that the judges were answering.

[Mr Gray]

As I've pointed out, the McCanns had to prove their case. Their lawyer argued that the archiving dispatch was equal to an acquittal, which is wrong. It is her claim that the judges were answering.

Doesn't matter what they were, answering or what the court expected them to prove.  The ECHR case us not an examination of the Portuguese hearings. 
It is simply a case which will examine whether the mccanns human rights were violated. It will.. Imo.. Look at the balance between article 10 and 8... And if course the mccanns right to the POI