McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[sadie]

We will have to agree to disagree. At every point before the McCanns were officially declared arguidos, Amaral wrote about them as though they were guilty & each point was laboured. Very rarely were they afforded the privilege of being portrayed as the innocent victims of  a possible crime rather than the perpetrators and that lack of privilege was extended by the SC who agreed that right to express the unproven thesis exceeded the right to be seen as innocent citizens in the eyes of those who had viewed the book/documentary.

And that is totally disgusting in what purports to be a democracy

[stephen25000]

Page 55
… On the national instances' side there is a clear tendency to secondarily favour freedom of expression and to overestimate the right to honour.

This has caused Portugal to be condemned by the ECHR for violation of art. 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. the cases Lopes Gomes da Silva vs Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues vs Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento vs Portugal (2005). Almeida Azevedo vs Portugal (2007), Colaço Mestre vs Portugal (2007), Leonel Azevedo vs Portugal (2008), Medipress Sociedade Jornalistica. Lda. Vs Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes vs Portugal (2017)).

We observe, in this respect, that in the cases in which the Portuguese State would be condemned by the ECHR for violation of Convention norms, a request of review can be lodged to the Court that issued the decision to re-examine (cf. Art. 449°-1g of the CPP introduced by Law n° 48/ 2007, of 29/8, and art. 771°-f of the CPC, introduced by D.L n°303/2007 of 24/8 - art. 696°-f of the NCPC-)

The human rights of the McCann's weren't violated. That is a pure myth, propagated by them and by some of those who support them.

They weren't on trial.

Meanwhile Misty, what about Madeleine's human rights to be taken care of, by her parents. THEY FAILED.

[sadie]

It's a trial, these things don't run on strict timelines.

Well why couldn't they have informed The Mccanns before they left home?

IMO it was deliberate; it happened too often with no warning.

[Alice Purjorick]

Myth:— The national courts are bound by the ECHR in Strasbourg.

Fact:— Quite the opposite. The national courts are NOT required to blindly FOLLOW the judgments of the ECHR. They must only “take account” of them. National courts can (and do) depart from ECHR caselaw in order to operate its own national laws and legal traditions. Where the national courts and the ECHR disagree or diverge, it is the ECHR that has to revisit its conclusions. It is worth remembering that the European Convention rights has to be interpreted for operation in the national jurisdictions (because it doesn’t have one-size-fits-all operability across different national jurisdictions).

[stephen25000]

Myth:— The national courts are bound by the ECHR in Strasbourg.

Fact:— Quite the opposite. The national courts are NOT required to blindly FOLLOW the judgments of the ECHR. They must only “take account” of them. National courts can (and do) depart from ECHR caselaw in order to operate its own national laws and legal traditions. Where the national courts and the ECHR disagree or diverge, it is the ECHR that has to revisit its conclusions. It is worth remembering that the European Convention rights has to be interpreted for operation in the national jurisdictions (because it doesn’t have one-size-fits-all operability across different national jurisdictions).

Thanks for that reminder Alice.

[G-Unit]

Page 55
… On the national instances' side there is a clear tendency to secondarily favour freedom of expression and to overestimate the right to honour.

This has caused Portugal to be condemned by the ECHR for violation of art. 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. the cases Lopes Gomes da Silva vs Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues vs Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento vs Portugal (2005). Almeida Azevedo vs Portugal (2007), Colaço Mestre vs Portugal (2007), Leonel Azevedo vs Portugal (2008), Medipress Sociedade Jornalistica. Lda. Vs Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes vs Portugal (2017)).

We observe, in this respect, that in the cases in which the Portuguese State would be condemned by the ECHR for violation of Convention norms, a request of review can be lodged to the Court that issued the decision to re-examine (cf. Art. 449°-1g of the CPP introduced by Law n° 48/ 2007, of 29/8, and art. 771°-f of the CPC, introduced by D.L n°303/2007 of 24/8 - art. 696°-f of the NCPC-)

The McCanns duly requested a review and it was denied.

[sadie]

Probably due to some posters proposing fantasitical scenarios and backing them up with "I seem to recall" or "If I remember correctly" this is not acceptable.

I have made it quite plain on here that as an octogenarian who has not enjoyed the best of health (understatement here) over the past two years, I will not be spending long hours searching for cites.  I have been suckered into doing that too many times, destroying the continuity of posts.  That spoiling of continuity, is of course, the reason why most of the requests for cites were given. 

The points I am making, backed up by other facts, have almost always been well discussed on here sometimes 3 or 4 times ... and the person requesting the cites has been an integral part of the discussions   BUT simply wants to disrupt my arguments.  Nothing more than that.  They know what I am saying is correct BUT disruption is the name of the game with some.

If John wants to get rid of me, then that is OK with me, BUT I will only search for cites when there is reason to do so ... and that is NOT when the person demanding it KNOWS what I am saying is correct

I have a good memory of events and I always put IIRC and sometimes on more important posts ask people to correct me if i am wrong

Unlike a few on here I am not a liar, but like everyone, I can make mistakes occasionally.  I appreciate it if someone puts me right if I have made a mistake.

[sadie]

And hence the need to take it to the ECHR.

Spot on, Rob ... and misty too!

[slartibartfast]

I have made it quite plain on here that as an octogenarian who has not enjoyed the best of health (understatement here) over the past two years, I will not be spending long hours searching for cites.  I have been suckered into doing that too many times, destroying the continuity of posts.  That spoiling of continuity, is of course, the reason why most of the requests for cites were given. 

The points I am making, backed up by other facts, have almost always been well discussed on here sometimes 3 or 4 times ... and the person requesting the cites has been an integral part of the discussions   BUT simply wants to disrupt my arguments.  Nothing more than that.  They know what I am saying is correct BUT disruption is the name of the game with some.

If John wants to get rid of me, then that is OK with me, BUT I will only search for cites when there is reason to do so ... and that is NOT when the person demanding it KNOWS what I am saying is correct

I have a good memory of events and I always put IIRC and sometimes on more important posts ask people to correct me if i am wrong

Unlike a few on here I am not a liar, but like everyone, I can make mistakes occasionally.  I appreciate it if someone puts me right if I have made a mistake.

Contrary to your belief, other posters do not necessarily know your claims are correct and it is up to you to not make mistakes by backing up your statements with cites.

[slartibartfast]

Page 55
… On the national instances' side there is a clear tendency to secondarily favour freedom of expression and to overestimate the right to honour.

This has caused Portugal to be condemned by the ECHR for violation of art. 10° of the European Convention on Human Rights (cf. the cases Lopes Gomes da Silva vs Portugal (2000), Urbino Rodrigues vs Portugal (2005), Roseiro Bento vs Portugal (2005). Almeida Azevedo vs Portugal (2007), Colaço Mestre vs Portugal (2007), Leonel Azevedo vs Portugal (2008), Medipress Sociedade Jornalistica. Lda. Vs Portugal (2016) and Tavares de Almeida Fernandes and Almeida Fernandes vs Portugal (2017)).

We observe, in this respect, that in the cases in which the Portuguese State would be condemned by the ECHR for violation of Convention norms, a request of review can be lodged to the Court that issued the decision to re-examine (cf. Art. 449°-1g of the CPP introduced by Law n° 48/ 2007, of 29/8, and art. 771°-f of the CPC, introduced by D.L n°303/2007 of 24/8 - art. 696°-f of the NCPC-)

You do actually realise what you have posted? Portugal has been criticised by the ECHR for favouring The Right to a Good Name over Freedom of Expression.

[sadie]

You are playing a blinder Misty.     Well done.

I will keep out of the discussion now so as to not disrupt your very well researched posts.

sadie x

[Wonderfulspam]

Spectacular own goal = playing a blinder.

Just plain blind would be more apt.

[stephen25000]

You are playing a blinder Misty.     Well done.

I will keep out of the discussion now so as to not disrupt your very well researched posts.

sadie x

Misty, like you and a few others, are going to be very disappointed.

The Mccann's human rights were never violated by the Portguese. Implying they are or were, is an insult to those people whose human rights have been violated around the world.

[G-Unit]

I have made it quite plain on here that as an octogenarian who has not enjoyed the best of health (understatement here) over the past two years, I will not be spending long hours searching for cites.  I have been suckered into doing that too many times, destroying the continuity of posts.  That spoiling of continuity, is of course, the reason why most of the requests for cites were given. 

The points I am making, backed up by other facts, have almost always been well discussed on here sometimes 3 or 4 times ... and the person requesting the cites has been an integral part of the discussions   BUT simply wants to disrupt my arguments.  Nothing more than that.  They know what I am saying is correct BUT disruption is the name of the game with some.

If John wants to get rid of me, then that is OK with me, BUT I will only search for cites when there is reason to do so ... and that is NOT when the person demanding it KNOWS what I am saying is correct

I have a good memory of events and I always put IIRC and sometimes on more important posts ask people to correct me if i am wrong

Unlike a few on here I am not a liar, but like everyone, I can make mistakes occasionally.  I appreciate it if someone puts me right if I have made a mistake.

I can appreciate your difficulties Sadie; I have a cataract which hinders me. I have been criticised for requesting cites but unless they are provided there is no way to check whether the poster is posting a fact, their own interpretation of a fact or just their opinion. Stating opinion as if it were a fact is against forum rules, but it happens. Without cites discussions then become arguments about opinions.   

A discussion based on opinion is very easy; it can be as simple as 'Yes it is!' 'No it isn't!'. That isn't a discussion in my opinion, it's a school yard argument. Clarity, not disruption is my aim.

[G-Unit]

And that is totally disgusting in what purports to be a democracy

If, of course, it's true.