The impact these rights have had
How has this been successful in outside of the UK
We must remember we are part of a a much larger system and the European Court of Human Rights provides important protections in other places outside of the UK.
This includes:
-
Ireland decriminalised homosexual acts
-
Belgium went on to prohibit discrimination against children born outside marriage
-
Bulgaria created an alternative to military service for conscientious objectors
-
The Netherlands changed laws about detaining people with mental health problems
-
Russia improved the social welfare measures for the victims of Chernobyl
-
Slovenia made changes to help prevent ill-treatment by the police
-
Latvia abolished discriminatory language tests for candidates standing for election
-
Moldova recognised freedom of religion
It's amazing that these laws have changed peoples lives for the better either by making them more accepted by their community or removing obstacles
Impact in the UK
Four children had been abused but social services took 5 years to take action, all efforts to hold authorities to account under English law failed. The Court ruled there was a positive obligation to protect the children from inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) and this had been breached. ( Z v UK, 2001)
The lack of legal recognition given to transsexual people was challenged and the Court found a breach of the right to family life (Article 8) and to marry (Article 12). This case (along with a domestic case under the Human Rights Act) led to legal recognition of gender reassignment for transsexual people. (Goodwin v UK 2002)
When an autistic man who lacked capacity to consent or object to medical treatment was kept in a psychiatric hospital without procedural safeguards to protect his rights, the Court found a breach of the right to liberty (Article 5). This led to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, designed to provide legal protections. (HL v UK, 2004)
An employer’s policy banning the wearing of a cross necklace for corporate image reasons was held to infringe rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9). (Eweida v UK, 2013)