ECHR urge McCanns to reach friendly settlement with Gonçalo Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

I assume that you agree with Duarte who claimed that the archiving dispatch was evidence (or was that proof?) of innocence.

According to the SC judges it could have been, had it truly  been archived under 277/1, but in their opinion it was actually archived under 277/2, because it could be reopened. See their reasoning here;

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm

Whichever I see it as evidence of innocence but not proof.

But why should the McCanns need evidence when they were entitled to the POI

[Carana]

https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/6422/file/Portugal_CPC_am2015_excerpts_en.pdf
I think Article 58 covers this.

Ah. That's ringing a few bells from the long and distant past. I vaguely remember posting on the changes to Art 58 as "founded" had been added to "suspicion" when the law first changed, just after the McCanns became arguidos. And once someone was arguido, the clock was ticking.

[G-Unit]

Whichever I see it as evidence of innocence but not proof.

But why should the McCanns need evidence when they were entitled to the POI

I think it allowed them to bring the POI into the libel trial.

[Mr Gray]

I think it allowed them to bring the POI into the libel trial.

A I understand thr POI is routinely allowed in a libel trial

[G-Unit]

A I understand thr POI is routinely allowed in a libel trial

The POI is always present in every criminal case, but not in every libel case.

[barrier]

Whichever I see it as evidence of innocence but not proof.

But why should the McCanns need evidence when they were entitled to the POI

POI of what exactly ?

[Mr Gray]

The POI is always present in every criminal case, but not in every libel case.

Ive done more reading... The POI is applicable to a libel case. It seems the SC said it wasnt and if thats true they are wrong. It seems you think a person can say exactly what they want... Can defame others with no proof... That seems to be the case in portugal but not according to thev ECHR.

Thats why imo the ECHR will look at the factual basis of Amarals claims and what evidence he had to support them

[Mr Gray]

POI of what exactly ?

Of what amaral was accusing them of... Im surprised you need to be told that

[G-Unit]

POI of what exactly ?

Duarte argued (correctly) that following the archiving of the criminal case the McCanns were still entitled to the protection of the presumption of innocence. Amaral, she asserted, was not allowed to suggest that they might have been guilty because he was a former police officer;

The presumption of innocence prohibits...the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.
Page 41 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

The judge of the first instance used this argument to restrict Amaral's right to freedom of expression and declare the McCann's right to privacy the dominant right.

[Carana]

Ive done more reading... The POI is applicable to a libel case. It seems the SC said it wasnt and if thats true they are wrong. It seems you think a person can say exactly what they want... Can defame others with no proof... That seems to be the case in portugal but not according to thev ECHR.

Thats why imo the ECHR will look at the factual basis of Amarals claims and what evidence he had to support them

I could be wrong, but that's not my understanding.

Mine is that whatever happens next will be about whether the Supreme Court's ruling failed to give sufficient weight to any of the claimants' human rights (including ECHR case rulings) applicable at the time.

IMO, the fact that the submission was considered to be a valid application is an indication that the legal aspects merit further consideration.

IMO, Amaral may well be mentioned as "GA" or "X", but - at this stage - he's irrelevant.

[Eleanor]

Duarte argued (correctly) that following the archiving of the criminal case the McCanns were still entitled to the protection of the presumption of innocence. Amaral, she asserted, was not allowed to suggest that they might have been guilty because he was a former police officer;

The presumption of innocence prohibits...the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.
Page 41 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

The judge of the first instance used this argument to restrict Amaral's right to freedom of expression and declare the McCann's right to privacy the dominant right.

Even The Judge of The First Instance wasn't correct. These right are paramount no matter who is violating those rights.

[Mr Gray]

I could be wrong, but that's not my understanding.

Mine is that whatever happens next will be about whether the Supreme Court's ruling failed to give sufficient weight to any of the claimants' human rights (including ECHR case rulings) applicable at the time.

IMO, the fact that the submission was considered to be a valid application is an indication that the legal aspects merit further consideration.

IMO, Amaral may well be mentioned as "GA" or "X", but - at this stage - he's irrelevant.

Ive read details of quite a few cased involving the balance between articles 10 and 8 and how the ECHR reached their decision. The ECHR produced a report citing past cases.
I have posted the link here previously.

From whst I have read it depends on whst evidence GS had to support his clsims and whether hid statements gave a balanced view of the evidence. I think he fails on both counts snd the SC were wrong to support him

[Mr Gray]

The POI is always present in every criminal case, but not in every libel case.

According to ECHR guidance under article 8 individuals have the right to the POI when accused of a criminal act.
So in the libel trial the McCanns have the right to the POI... If the SC have said any different they are clearly wrong.

[barrier]

According to ECHR guidance under article 8 individuals have the right to the POI when accused of a criminal act.
So in the libel trial the McCanns have the right to the POI... If the SC have said any different they are clearly wrong.

Did the McCanns claim Amaral libelled them or did they claim damages to reputation.

[G-Unit]

According to ECHR guidance under article 8 individuals have the right to the POI when accused of a criminal act.
So in the libel trial the McCanns have the right to the POI... If the SC have said any different they are clearly wrong.

The SC judges did not suggest that the McCanns were guilty of a crime imo, so didn't breach the McCann's right to the POI.