McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Robittybob1]

There are criteria used to decide which way the balance goes. One of these is the veracity of the evidence.

I've explained just now that amarals evidence is in some instances completely made up. That will go against Portugal

That is why I asked "is the ECHR going to have to examine the evidence then"?   If the SC wasn't interested in the facts of the case what chance does the ECHR have?

[Mr Gray]

That is why I asked "is the ECHR going to have to examine the evidence then"?   If the SC wasn't interested in the facts of the case what chance does the ECHR have?

The ECHR take into account the veracity of the evidence that supports the defamation.. So it follows they will look at the evidence

[Mr Gray]

Free speech is important. Amaral said the dogs alerted that the ccar key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body. He said the dogs had never failed in over 2oo cases.

If that was true its important that its highlighted and I would support him and not the McCanns... But it isn't true and therefore he has no right to say it

[Robittybob1]

Free speech is important. Amaral said the dogs alerted that the ccar key and the boot had been in contact with a dead body. He said the dogs had never failed in over 2oo cases.

If that was true its important that its highlighted and I would support him and not the McCanns... But it isn't true and therefore he has no right to say it

It would only have to be his honest opinion at the time, wouldn't it?  I can't see then bringing Amaral in to have his opinions to be cross-examined.

[Mr Gray]

It would only have to be his honest opinion at the time, wouldn't it?  I can't see then bringing Amaral in to have his opinions to be cross-examined.

It isn't simply being his honest opinion... It has to be backed by evidence. They don't need to bring him in.. His evidence is obviously fantasy

[Robittybob1]

It isn't simply being his honest opinion... It has to be backed by evidence. They don't need to bring him in.. His evidence is obviously fantasy

Do you think they will make decisions like that?  Do you think it will like this: "Oh it is obvious Amaral was wrong , so we find in favour of the McCanns."   If they do, well, what a shambles.

Surely they will have to look at how things are quantified before they are balanced.  How do you put a number (a weight) on the various rights?

[Mr Gray]

Do you think they will make decisions like that?  Do you think it will like this: "Oh it is obvious Amaral was wrong , so we find in favour of the McCanns."   If they do, well, what a shambles.

Surely they will have to look at how things are quantified before they are balanced.  How do you put a number (a weight) on the various rights?

Look at page 40 on the cite I gave

[faithlilly]

This may help explain further the role of the ECHR.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf

[G-Unit]

This may help explain further the role of the ECHR.

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf

It says in there that;

The applicant must be, personally and directly, a victim of a violation of the Convention, and must have suffered a significant disadvantage.

I struggle to identify any 'significant disadvantage' suffered by the McCanns because of the actions of the Portuguese state.

[Venturi Swirl]

It says in there that;

The applicant must be, personally and directly, a victim of a violation of the Convention, and must have suffered a significant disadvantage.

I struggle to identify any 'significant disadvantage' suffered by the McCanns because of the actions of the Portuguese state.

Well you wouldn’t would you?  You don’t believe they’re innocent of the crimes Amaral accused them of in his book, therefore you can’t understand the suffering his book caused them, nor the additional distress that overturning his original guilty verdict would have caused.  When you have been denied justice then that can be considered a “significant disadvantage “.

[G-Unit]

Well you wouldn’t would you?  You don’t believe they’re innocent of the crimes Amaral accused them of in his book, therefore you can’t understand the suffering his book caused them, nor the additional distress that overturning his original guilty verdict would have caused.  When you have been denied justice then that can be considered a “significant disadvantage “.

Given that they were made arguidos in September 2007, why were they upset in 2008 when Amaral published the details in his book? Was it because they thought they'd been cleared by the archiving dispatch, perhaps?

[barrier]

Laudable really how a news article with out any real or verifiable veracity can bring out such sentences as the ECHR will do this and that when the case being talked about is still at a stage of not even being decided it it's admissible yet.

[Venturi Swirl]

Given that they were made arguidos in September 2007, why were they upset in 2008 when Amaral published the details in his book? Was it because they thought they'd been cleared by the archiving dispatch, perhaps?

If you can’t understand why they were upset  by the book then there really is no hope of you understanding why anyone has any emotional reaction to anything imo.  This is where a lack of empathy gets you.

[Mr Gray]

It says in there that;

The applicant must be, personally and directly, a victim of a violation of the Convention, and must have suffered a significant disadvantage.

I struggle to identify any 'significant disadvantage' suffered by the McCanns because of the actions of the Portuguese state.

So you don't understand that being accused of being guilty of several criminal acts would cause any significant harm. I find that very odd

[Venturi Swirl]

So you don't understand that being accused of being guilty of several criminal acts would cause any significant harm. I find that very odd

As do I but it does explain something about the sceptic mindset IMO.  Many (most?) sceptics simply cannot or will not see things from the point of view of people for whom they have a visceral dislike.