McCanns claim they can still appeal Supreme Court decision.

[Mr Gray]

The ECHR can rule that the verdict by the SC is a miscarriage of justice
They cannot force the court to change their decision but they can rule it was wrong
That will certainly disappoint some posters

[Alice Purjorick]

That's right
I am repeating what the papers said

Which is incorrect according to the ECHR.

[Alice Purjorick]

The ECHR can rule that the verdict by the SC is a miscarriage of justice
They cannot force the court to change their decision but they can rule it was wrong
That will certainly disappoint some posters

Why ?

[Alice Purjorick]

The ECHR may well rule taht justice wasnt done....and of course you will then have to accept their decision

They can't rule on that either. They can only rule on the rights defined by the European Convention of Human Rights.

The following rights, in particular, are protected:

the right to life;

the right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters;

the right to respect for private and family life;

freedom of expression;

freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

the right to an effective remedy;

the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; and

the right to vote and to stand for election.

[slartibartfast]

I am...a victory for defamation

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-96776%22%5D%7D

[Mr Gray]

They can't rule on that either. They can only rule on the rights defined by the European Convention of Human Rights.

The following rights, in particular, are protected:

the right to life;

the right to a fair hearing in civil and criminal matters;

the right to respect for private and family life;

freedom of expression;

freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

the right to an effective remedy;

the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions; and

the right to vote and to stand for election.

they can rule on the presumption of innocence....and  I understand that claims for "libel" are grought under the right to a family and private life...they can therefore rule that the judgement in portugal violated their rights and was therefore unjust



right to a fair hearing is there too

[John]

they can rule on the presumption of innocence....and  I understand that claims for "libel" are grought under the right to a family and private life...they can therefore rule that the judgement in portugal violated their rights and was therefore unjust



right to a fair hearing is there too

As already pointed out, it all comes down to semantics. Regardless of what the ECHR might decide wrt human rights the Portuguese Supreme Court decision was final.  The ECHR cannot tell a country what laws they can and cannot invoke.

[Mr Gray]

As already pointed out, it all comes down to semantics. Regardless of what the ECHR might decide wrt human rights the Portuguese Supreme Court decision was final.  The ECHR cannot tell a country what laws they can and cannot invoke.

they can rule that the judgement was unjust and order the country to pay compensation.

[John]

As already pointed out, it all comes down to semantics. Regardless of what the ECHR might decide wrt human rights the Portuguese Supreme Court decision was final.  The ECHR cannot tell a country what laws they can and cannot invoke.

They can but as already pointed out a while back, if the McCanns raise an action against Portugal in the ECHR they will be effectively cutting off the legs of the investigation in Portugal.  And there was me thinking this was all about finding a lost little girl?

[Mr Gray]

They can but as already pointed out a while back, if the McCanns raise an action against Portugal in the ECHR they will be effectively cutting off the legs of the investigation in Portugal.

will they...why
that would show more injustice

[Alice Purjorick]

they can rule that the judgement was unjust and order the country to pay compensation.

On what basis would they do that?
The McCanns were not denied the right to fair trial which is about all the ECHR would be interested in.
There are two hurdles to jump before it will even be heard.

[Mr Gray]

On what basis would they do that?
The McCanns were not denied the right to fair trial which is about all the ECHR would be interested in.
There are two hurdles to jump before it will even be heard.

they were denied the presumption of innocence........they may well have been denied the right to a free trial....we will see.....its very premature of posters here saying they have zero chances of success...they mat well ahve a very good case. amaral has clearly libelled them and that will almost certainly another compalint

[slartibartfast]

they were denied the presumption of innocence........they may well have been denied the right to a free trial....we will see.....its very premature of posters here saying they have zero chances of success...they mat well ahve a very good case. amaral has clearly libelled them and that will almost certainly another compalint

Not according to the Portuguese Supreme Court.

[G-Unit]

In your opinion
And in my opinion you and others who share this view are speaking absolute rubbish
And again showing your bias

I don't know what you mean by 'opinion'. Surely you read the first judgement?

IV. fully dismiss the requests, made in the same action, by the claimants  MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and  AMELIE EVE MCCANN against the defendant  GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

[stephen25000]

On what basis would they do that?
The McCanns were not denied the right to fair trial which is about all the ECHR would be interested in.
There are two hurdles to jump before it will even be heard.

They've had their bite at the cherry.

It's time they grew up and moved on, and get on and search for their daughter, rather than spend other peoples money, donated or otherwise, on pointless litigation.