McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Mr Gray]

You conveniently forgot to mention that it was the McCanns themselves who started this narrative when they claimed they had been cleared.  The Supreme Court was right to correct them in the way they did because they have never been cleared.  In fact their involvement post 3rd May 2007 has still to be properly investigated imo.

It has been properly investigated imo....From memory the mccanns claimed that the archiving despatch was evidence of innocence... the SC disagreed....imo it is and the ECHR may well mention that

[G-Unit]

Its nothing to do with being in the public eye...what makes you think it is

This?

what is discussed in the present case is the exercise of the right to opinion of the respondent on matters of public interest concerning the appellants who, in this case, have to be considered public figures.
Page 62
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.15

[Angelo222]

I am becoming increasingly fed up with demands for the rights of Madeleine when so many believe her dead, without any proof at all.  This actually deprives her of the right to be alive.

We all know that Madeleine is innocent.

Dead or alive, it is Maddie's rights which were clearly breached. Under the aforementioned Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights children have the right to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being.  Did Maddie's parents ever consider her rights when they went out leaving her and her twin siblings alone in an unlocked apartment?

[slartibartfast]

Its nothing to do with being in the public eye...what makes you think it is

And also, they are voluntary public figures, because they accepted to be thrown into the vulnerability of the public sphere, as a consequence of the role that they tried to assume in the public debate in which they decided to intervene.

Actually, as stated in the judgement under appeal and as it results from the proven facts, it was the appellants themselves who, by virtue of having easy access to the public debate, multiplied in interviews and interventions in the national and international media. Thus they opened the way for any person wishing equally to express an opinion on the case, contradicting their thesis.

Now, as Francisco Teixeira da Mota points out, op. cit. p. 21, The ECHR, in assessing the cases that are submitted to them, grants' the maximum degree of protection to the public debate and to freedom of expression, when public or political issues are at stake, including the public figures themselves and their actions.

This Court in fact considers that freedom of expression, as provided for in article 10°-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man.

As already mentioned, the ECHR has developed a doctrine of enhanced protection of the freedom of expression, when the person targeted by the imputations of facts and by the formulation of dishonourable value judgements is a public figure and when a matter of public interest is at stake.

Actually, being a public figure and not a mere private person, the targeted person is more exposed, unavoidably and consciously, to a tight control of his behaviour and opinions by journalists as well as by the general public. This is why the public figure should demonstrate a much greater tolerance in regard of such control.

And this is all the more so when it happens that the targeted persons themselves are the ones who utter public statements susceptible of criticism.

[Mr Gray]

I have cosidered that and it may be another mistake by the SC.....public figures have less protection but imo public figures refers to public servants...again something for the ECHR to rule on

[Mr Gray]

Dead or alive, it is Maddie's rights which were clearly breached. Under the aforementioned Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights children have the right to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being.  Did Maddie's parents ever consider her rights when they went out leaving her and her twin siblings alone in an unlocked apartment?

according to the archiving report the Mccanns did not neglect Maddie...Im not interested getting drawn into a pointless argument that has been discussed a million times before

[Angelo222]

It has been properly investigated imo....From memory the mccanns claimed that the archiving despatch was evidence of innocence... the SC disagreed....imo it is and the ECHR may well mention that

I was referring to the private detectives who were tasked with attacking Amaral when they were supposed to be searching for Maddie.

[Angelo222]

according to the archiving report the Mccanns did not neglect Maddie...Im not interested getting drawn into a pointless argument that has been discussed a million times before

Neglect and failure to keep safe are two separate issues.  Which part of protection and care don't you understand?  It was as a direct result of their actions that Maddie was either abducted, met with an accident outside or both.

[Mr Gray]

Dead or alive, it is Maddie's rights which were clearly breached. Under the aforementioned Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights children have the right to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being.  Did Maddie's parents ever consider her rights when they went out leaving her and her twin siblings alone in an unlocked apartment?

the ECHR only considers breaches it is asked to cosider...which does not include maddie

[Mr Gray]

I was referring to the private detectives who were tasked with attacking Amaral when they were supposed to be searching for Maddie.

the ECHR wont be considering that either...I thought you were going to write to the pj

[slartibartfast]

I have cosidered that and it may be another mistake by the SC.....public figures have less protection but imo public figures refers to public servants...again something for the ECHR to rule on

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

[Mr Gray]

Neglect and failure to keep safe are two separate issues.  Which part of protection and care don't you understand?

raed the archiving report re neglect and you will understand...not keeping safe comes under the umbrella of neglect

[slartibartfast]

Neglect and failure to keep safe are two separate issues.  Which part of protection and care don't you understand?  It was as a direct result of their actions that Maddie was either abducted, met with an accident outside or both.

Thus, the enhancing judgment and the logical-deductive reasoning he develops throughout the book leads the reader to the conclusion that the child - whose custody and safety, along with that of her siblings Sean McCann and Amelie McCann, were neglected by her parents, here appellants, though neither reckless nor grossly, as it is said in the filing order issued by the prosecutor of the Republic on 21/7/08

[barrier]

Does any one know if the Portuguese get to put their point of view across before such a decision to proceed is taken,if it gets that far.

In answer to my question it seems as if they do.

. The Chamber may still declare the case inadmissible and, if it does, that decision will be final, but if it considers the case admissible it will examine the merits of your complaint. Before doing that, however, it will first communicate the application to the Government concerned, to inform them of the existence of the complaint and allow them to submit observations on the matter in dispute.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Your_Application_ENG.pdf

[Brietta]

The fact that she disappeared under mysterious circumstances and has not been seen for over ten years, the fact that her parents were both suspects in that disappearance would leave most people with a slight inkling that she is deceased.

The fact that her parents were made arguidos for spurious reasons which resulted in neither evidence supporting their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance nor the fact that there was any evidence to support Madeleine's demise; leaves me with the firm belief that her presumption of life just as her parents presumption of innocence have been ground into the dust.

Not really by the Portuguese system which allowed a mibbees aye mibbees no for Madeleine and the release of the arguidos from suspicion ... but when it boils down to it ... one man who wrote a book with no substance to it.

It will be interesting if nothing else to see what the ECHR makes of the points of law which have arisen as a result of an appeal court decision which some see as sacrosanct.
For me, I am just disappointed that Madeleine's parents have been left to seek justice in the European Court and I wish them every hope for success, but more than that, I wish them the success of finding out what happened to their daughter and perhaps even her return.