Maddie Basta de Mentiras

[Snowgirl]

The ECHR case has everything to do with Amaral. to decide if the SC jufgement was correct they will look at what evidence amarals claimsd were based on. If the McCanns win at the ECHR they can then petition the Portuguese to re-open the case and the SC judgement could be overturned.

You should know better that sny post I make is based on facts

The ECHR will not look at the evidence Amaral's claims were based on .
 That's my opinion .
 Has the McCann complaint got any further up the ladder ?

[Mr Gray]

The ECHR will not look at the evidence Amaral's claims were based on .
 That's my opinion .
 Has the McCann complaint got any further up the ladder ?

If you read about how the ECHR judge cases... 8 vs 10..on the official ECHR site they state as, a fact that the, evidence supporting the statements and their veracity are what is important.  That's, not opinion.. It's fact and it makes perfect sense

[G-Unit]

If you read about how the ECHR judge cases... 8 vs 10..on the official ECHR site they state as, a fact that the, evidence supporting the statements and their veracity are what is important.  That's, not opinion.. It's fact and it makes perfect sense

No problem then. Amaral's opinions were based on the evidence in the files.

[Snowgirl]

If you read about how the ECHR judge cases... 8 vs 10..on the official ECHR site they state as, a fact that the, evidence supporting the statements and their veracity are what is important.  That's, not opinion.. It's fact and it makes perfect sense

The McCanns have made a complaint against the Supreme Court of Portugal .
They are wanting compensation for that.
So far as I know the ECHR cannot change the decision which was .......

According to a Supreme Court official, the decision upholds the reasoning on which the appeal court based its decision to revoke the award of damages, stating that: “In a situation of conflict between the right to honour and the right to freedom of expression, the criterion of weighing of interests, acting according to the principle of proportionality and the specificity of the case, points in the direction of its being the freedom of expression  .

It's (SC decision) about the right to Freedom Of Expression .

[Mr Gray]

No problem then. Amaral's opinions were based on the evidence in the files.

You missed out the word veracity... There's also the question of balance.. Theres a massive problem for Portugal and Amaral

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns have made a complaint against the Supreme Court of Portugal .
They are wanting compensation for that.
So far as I know the ECHR cannot change the decision which was .......

According to a Supreme Court official, the decision upholds the reasoning on which the appeal court based its decision to revoke the award of damages, stating that: “In a situation of conflict between the right to honour and the right to freedom of expression, the criterion of weighing of interests, acting according to the principle of proportionality and the specificity of the case, points in the direction of its being the freedom of expression  .

It's (SC decision) about the right to Freedom Of Expression .

The complaint is against Portugal and their decision not to uphhold the MvCanns rights under, Article.. This I'd s conflict between Article 8 and amarals rights under article 10.
The ECHR will look at the evidence supporting amarals statements and also the balance based on all the available evidence.  He fails on both...
If the ruling is in the McCanns favour then they can petition porrtugal to re-open the Case and the SC judgement will be reassessed based on the ECHR ruling..

[Snowgirl]

The complaint is against Portugal and their decision not to uphhold the MvCanns rights under, Article.. This I'd s conflict between Article 8 and amarals rights under article 10.
The ECHR will look at the evidence supporting amarals statements and also the balance based on all the availabl
e evidence.  He fails on both...
If the ruling is in the McCanns favour then they can petition porrtugal to re-open the Case and the SC judgement will be reassessed based on the ECHR ruling..

I don't agree apart from your first paragraph. but let's leave it at that?

[Mr Gray]

I don't agree apart from your first paragraph. but let's leave it at that?

I don't really care if you agree or not... All my information comes from publications by the ECHR... It's absolutely correct... Where's yours from

[barrier]

We'll just have to await the decision.
 It sure is a long time coming.

it's not even at a noteworthy pending.

[Vertigo Swirl]

it's not even at a noteworthy pending.

Yet Fairh has been reliably informed the ECHR have thrown the case out.  Jeez who to believe?

[G-Unit]

You missed out the word veracity... There's also the question of balance.. Theres a massive problem for Portugal and Amaral

Evidence is evidence. Interpreting that evidence is opinion.

[barrier]

Yet Fairh has been reliably informed the ECHR have thrown the case out.  Jeez who to believe?

Who can say, if it's not noteworthy , then it's on a back burner.

[Mr Gray]

Evidence is evidence. Interpreting that evidence is opinion.

Well done.. What do you think a court verdict is.... It's an opinion.  The ECHR will give their opinion on the SCs opinion

[Mr Gray]

Who can say, if it's not noteworthy , then it's on a back burner.

It was, sent to the prtuguese govt for their obssevations in Jan.. It has to go back and forth a few times and each exchange takes about three months.  The wheels are in motion

[Mr Gray]

Evidence is evidence. Interpreting that evidence is opinion.

We know that according to the PJ the main evidence against the mccanns was the dog alerts.. We therefore know as a fact that they misinterpreted the evidence