McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[carlymichelle]

So obviously it never got past the first hurdle, that's what rejected without being examined means.

he will cling to his beliefs forever we know that

[Mr Gray]

So obviously it never got past the first hurdle, that's what rejected without being examined means.

If that's your opinion... But what is your opinion worth

How much  do you know about the admission criteria... Tell us on what grounds you think it was, rejected... I really doubt you have a clue

[slartibartfast]

There is no notice of rejection...The case will not even have begun to be looked at yet

That is evidence it wasn’t submitted....

[Mr Gray]

That is evidence it wasn’t submitted....

never said it wasnt....very weak evidence.......evidence in support of something does not mean it happened..

I do think its a diversion to continually ask for evidence when regular posters on the forum know what evidence exists......I would say its almost certain an application has been made...I would be very surprised if it hadnt...and having looked at the admission criteria I would also be very surprised if it was rejected

[Angelo222]

The ECHR according to the opening post confirmed as long ago as September 2017 that an application had been made and since it is still not recorded in the register it must be assumed that it was rejected.  The only other explanation that I can see is that the register is defunct and does not reflect the true situation. If the application had been accepted it would have moved to the second phase by now and doesn't appear to have happened.

[Mr Gray]

The ECHR according to the opening post confirmed as long ago as September 2017 that an application had been made and since it is still not recorded in the register it must be assumed that it was rejected.  The only other explanation that I can see is that the register is defunct and does not reflect the true situation. If the application had been accepted it would have moved to the second phase by now and doesn't appear to have happened.

That's your opinion... Nothing more... Again... On what grounds might it be rejected... Are you aware of the grounds for rejection... Based on your posts, I think not

What's the second phase by the way... And how many phases, are there

[Venturi Swirl]

So obviously it never got past the first hurdle, that's what rejected without being examined means.

Why would the case be rejected by the ECHR without even being examined?

[kizzy]

Why would the case be rejected by the ECHR without even being examined?

Probably because the mccanns don't qualify.

A case will only be successful if:

There has been a violation of a human right
The application form has been filled in correctly
The applicant is a ‘victim’
The applicant has exhausted all domestic remedies available



lets face it the only violation of rights - were maddies imo.

[Mr Gray]

Probably because the mccanns don't qualify.

A case will only be successful if:

There has been a violation of a human right
The application form has been filled in correctly
The applicant is a ‘victim’
The applicant has exhausted all domestic remedies available



lets face it the only violation of rights - were maddies imo.

It's a bit more complex but at least you've made an attempt to answer... Article 8 as I've explained with cites

[slartibartfast]

It's a bit more complex but at least you've made an attempt to answer... Article 8 as I've explained with cites

Article 10 back at you.

[Mr Gray]

Article 10 back at you.

Read the judgements I've posted... 10 does not gine the right to defame

[Venturi Swirl]

Probably because the mccanns don't qualify.

A case will only be successful if:

There has been a violation of a human right
The application form has been filled in correctly
The applicant is a ‘victim’
The applicant has exhausted all domestic remedies available



lets face it the only violation of rights - were maddies imo.

You’d still have to examine the case before deciding it didn’t comply with one of the criteria you’ve mentioned don’t you agree?

[slartibartfast]

Read the judgements I've posted... 10 does not gine the right to defame

It gives the right to say what happened in the investigation and what the opinions of the policeman involved were.

[Mr Gray]

It gives the right to say what happened in the investigation and what the opinions of the policeman involved were.

Amaral said more than was in the files... He has no right to defame the McCann's as my quoted cases show.. Imo

Nowhere in the files does it, state proof of death in the, apartment

[Mr Gray]

It gives the right to say what happened in the investigation and what the opinions of the policeman involved were.

In your opinion... It's up to the ECHR