ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[jassi]

Where does The ECHR say that The McCanns have to accept a reasonable offer?  And how do The ECHR define Reasonable?

Whatever they think fit, I imagine.

To refuse a 'reasonable' offer might be seen as petulant.

[Eleanor]

Whatever they think fit, I imagine.

So we are all nowhere on a hiding to nothing.  Unless Portugal admit that they got it wrong.

[jassi]

As I understand it, the ECHR have the final say, against which there is no appeal by anyone.

[Eleanor]

As I understand it, the ECHR have the final say, against which there is no appeal by anyone.

What is the point of going to The European Court of Human Rights if ones Human Rights are to be ignored?

[jassi]

What is the point of going to The European Court of Human Rights if ones Human Rights are to be ignored?

They won't be ignored. A judgement will be made.

[Mr Gray]

I don't see how in this case no admission of liability could be seen as reasonable. If it were then it would allow a Amaral carte blanched to repeat his claims leaving the McCanns with no redress

[G-Unit]

In the case you quoted the claimant must have agreed to no admission of liability and happy to being compensated. We don't know what would have happened if they had objected

We don't know, but if they had refused the offer then their application could have;

Been struck out if the ECHR decided they had refused a reasonable offer.
Been struck out as inadmissible.
Been continued to the contentious phase.

[Mr Gray]

We don't know, but if they had refused the offer then their application could have;

Been struck out if the ECHR decided they had refused a reasonable offer.
Been struck out as inadmissible.
Been continued to the contentious phase.

You quoted this case in support of the idea that the ECHR found it reasonable not to admit liability.. It doesnt

[Venturi Swirl]

We don't know, but if they had refused the offer then their application could have;

Been struck out if the ECHR decided they had refused a reasonable offer.
Been struck out as inadmissible.
Been continued to the contentious phase.

and what if Portugal refuses to make an offer, would that be seen as reasonable?

[jassi]

We don't know, but if they had refused the offer then their application could have;

Been struck out if the ECHR decided they had refused a reasonable offer.
Been struck out as inadmissible.
Been continued to the contentious phase.

Would the admissibility not have been determined before moving to reasonable offer ?

[G-Unit]

What is the point of going to The European Court of Human Rights if ones Human Rights are to be ignored?

People apply to the ECHR because they believe their human rights have been breached. There are no guarantees that the ECHR will agree with them.

[G-Unit]

I don't see how in this case no admission of liability could be seen as reasonable. If it were then it would allow a Amaral carte blanched to repeat his claims leaving the McCanns with no redress

That's because you agree with the McCanns opinions. The ECHR may agree with them, but it may not.

[Mr Gray]

That's because you agree with the McCanns opinions. The ECHR may agree with them, but it may not.

You're stating opinion as fact and you are quite wrong. My opinion is based on sound logic not confirmation bias.

[G-Unit]

Would the admissibility not have been determined before moving to reasonable offer ?

The first test is whether the application is admissible. Such things as applying within the time limits, having exhausted domestic remedies, and making sure that the application concerns human rights are examined. It's not clear to me who does this or when.

What is clear is that a decision on admissibility doesn't mean that a decision on the merits of the application has been reached.

The Court always encourages parties
to negotiate a friendly settlement. If no
agreement is reached the Court will proceed
to examine the merits of the application.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/50Questions_ENG.pdf

[Eleanor]

People apply to the ECHR because they believe their human rights have been breached. There are no guarantees that the ECHR will agree with them.

That wasn't what I meant.  But never mind.