1 / 25

Tvang og menneskerettigheter

Tvang og menneskerettigheter. Foredrag Sivilombudsmannens menneskerettighetsseminar 19. november 2008 v/professor dr. jur. Jørgen Aall. 1 Innledning. 1.1 Tvang = Inngrep (se 2 – 3 nedenfor) 1.2 Menneskerettigheter SPR og ØSK-konvensjoner Forholdet til ØSK:

hosea
Download Presentation

Tvang og menneskerettigheter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Tvang og menneskerettigheter Foredrag Sivilombudsmannens menneskerettighetsseminar 19. november 2008 v/professor dr. jur. Jørgen Aall

  2. 1 Innledning 1.1 Tvang = Inngrep (se 2 – 3 nedenfor) 1.2 Menneskerettigheter • SPR og ØSK-konvensjoner • Forholdet til ØSK: Bevilgninger kan redusere behovet for tvang • Ytterligere avgrensninger: • Flere SPR-konvensjoner aktuelle (BK, KMNF., m/fl) • Symptomatisk: KMNF art. 14: ”guarantees in accordance with international human rights law” • -> særlig fokus på Den eur. Menneskerettighetskonv. (EMK)

  3. 1.3 Hvilke EMK-rettigheter berøres særlig? • Art. 5 Vern mot vilkårlig frihetsberøvelse • Art. 3 Vern mot umenneskelig behandling • Art. 8 Vern om privatliv 1.4 Vilkårene for inngrep på disse rettigheters område

  4. 2 Inngrep 2.1 Den generelle inngrepsvurderingen -Den nedre terskel : ”Alminnelige oppfordringer og ledelse med hånden eller andre fysiske påvirkninger av liknende art anses ikke som bruk av tvang eller makt”(sml. sotjl. § 4A-2, 2.3.) -Over terskelen: ”motsetter seg eller tiltak som er så inngripende at de uansett motstand må regnes som bruk av tvang eller makt” (sml. sotjl. § 4A-2, 2.1.) -Særlig aktuelle inngrep: frihetsberøvelse, medisinering, ”adferdsterapeutiske tiltak ..” og lignende. 2.2 Inngrep foretatt av offentlige myndigheter Forholdet til statens ansvar for ”inngrep” fra private – positiv tilsikring. 2.3 Tvang som motsetning til frivillighet Samtykke og avkall på rettigheter

  5. 3. Tvang (inngrep) på utvalgte områder • 3.1 Inngrep på område for EMK artikkel 5 3.1.1 Teksten angir frihetsberøvelse, men definerer ikke begrepet nærmere • EMDs praksis. Engel (1976): ”inngrepets art, varighet, virkning og gjennomføringsmåte”

  6. 3.3.2 Særlig om samtykke til innleggelse el.l. (da ikke frihetsberøvelse) • Generelle forutsetninger: Klarhet, gyldighet, rimelighet • EMDs praksis • De Wilde, Ooms og Versyp (18.06.1971) • H.L (05.10.2004) • Storck (16.06.2005) • Jon Nielsen (28.11.1988)

  7. De Wilde (løsgjengere) • “… the right to liberty is too important in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention for a person to lose the benefit of the protection of the Convention for the single reason that he gives himself up to be taken into detention. Detention might violate Article 5 even although the person concerned might have agreed to it.”

  8. H L (autist) • ”Informal patient” (formelt fri til å forlate, men dette var, hensett til pasientens tilstand, illusorisk. • «the applicant was under continuous supervision and control and was not free to leave. Any suggestion to the contrary was, in the Court’s view, fairly described by Lord Steyn [House of Lords] as ’stretching credulity to breaking point’ and as a ’fairy tale’» (dommens avsnitt 91).

  9. Storck (psykisk helsevern) • The applicant tried on several occasions to flee from the clinic. She had to be shackled in order to prevent her from absconding and had to be brought back to the clinic by the police when she managed to escape on one occasion. • Under these circumstances, the Court is unable to discern any factual basis for the assumption that the applicant – presuming that she had the capacity to consent – agreed to her continued stay in the clinic.

  10. Storck forts. • Uansett ikke samtykkekompetanse etter tung medisinering: • «In the alternative, assuming that the applicant was no longer capable of consenting following her treatment with strong medication, she cannot, in any event, be considered to have validly agreed to her stay in the clinic.»

  11. Jon Nielsen • Mors begjæring om innleggelse av sin tolv år gamle sønn på ungdomspsykiatrisk avdeling var en utøvelse av foreldreansvaret (artikkel 8). -> Ikke frihetsberøvelse • Diskutabel (sml. pshvl. § 2-1)

  12. 3.2 Inngrep på området for art. 8 • Interference. ”. • Typisk art. 8: omsorsgsovertagelse, forelderansvars/adopsjon • Grensefelt mot artikkel 3: Physical and moral integrity”. Terskelspørsmål

  13. 3.3 Inngrep på området for art. 3 • Terskel. Alvorlige inngrep • Herczegfalvy-saken (24.09.1992) • Henaf-saken (27.11.2003) • Nevmerzhitsky-saken 05.04.2005)

  14. 3.4 Hvis inngrep, så må visse vilkår iakttas og rettigheter respekteres … så står de der da, disse tre: lov, formål og forholdsmessighet.

  15. 4 Vilkår for inngrep: Lov 4.1. Grunnleggende rettsstatlig krav • Begrunnelsen for kravet: Både forutberegnelighet og rettssikkerhet i videre forstand 4.2. Systemet etter EMK: 4.2.1 En betingelse etter alle artikler som åpner for inngrep. (- Hva med artikkel 3? Husk at bestemmelsen er ”absolutt”) 4.2.2. Formuleringen er ikke identisk, men kravet er likevel som utgangspunkt det samme, Malone-dommen. 4.2.3 Kravets innhold: • Autonomt • Nasjonal basis • Tilgjengelighet • Presisjon (lex certa): (kritikken mot sostjl. kap. 6 A (nå 4 A)) 4.2.4 Variasjoner i kravet 4.2.5 Subsomsjonskontroll og skjønnsmargin

  16. Artikkel 5.1e: Enhorn (smitte): • Where deprivation of liberty is concerned, it is particularly important that the general principle of legal certainty be satisfied. It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of “lawfulness” set by the Convention

  17. 5 Formål og forholdsmessighet 5.1 Kan vi her snakke om et tilsvarende felles krav ved inngrep? 5.2 Bare teksten i artikkel 8 nevner forholdsmessighet (”nødvendig …”). Artikkel 3 er absolutt og artikkel 5 er absolutt bortsett fra seks kategoriunntak. Likevel et betinget ja på spørsmålet i 5.1. 5.3 EMDs praksis Art. 8 Herczegfalvy Art. 3 Herczegfalvy, Henaf Art. 5 Enhorn (25.01.2005), Winterwerp (24.10.1979) ->

  18. Enhorn: • The detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is only justified where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or the public interest which might require that the person concerned be detained. That means that it does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is in conformity with national law, it must also be necessary in the circumstances

  19. Art. 5.1 e: “for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases” • Enhorn para. 44 presiserer vurderingstemaet: • [Formål:] whether the spreading of the infectious disease is dangerous to public health or safety, and • [Forholdsmessighet:] whether detention of the person infected is the last resort in order to prevent the spreading of the disease, because less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the public interest.

  20. Art. 5.1 e: ”Unsound mind” Winterwerp, para 39. • Formål: • firstly, he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind; • Forholdsmessighet: • secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and • thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder. • Furthermore, there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention. In principle, the “detention” of a person as a mental health patient will only be “lawful” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 1 if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution • Sml. Price-dommen (10.07.2001 – krenkelse av artikkel 3) • sml. også her KMNF art. 14.2 ”rimelig tilrettelegging”

  21. Artikkel 8: Herczegfalvy • Graverende forhold. Bl. a. lenket til sengen i 14 dager. Ikke krenkelse. Formål og nødvendighet • Staten vid skjønnsmargin i nødvendighetsvurderingen • “the Court attaches decisive weight here to the lack of specific information capable of disproving the Government’s opinion that the hospital authorities were entitled to regard the applicant’s psychiatric illness as rendering him entirely incapable of taking decisions for himself. Consequently, no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) has been shown in this respect.” • Kan kritiseres: overlater alt til helsepersonell?

  22. Art. 3: Herczegfalvy -> Henaf • Herczegfalvy (som forrige s.) • En viss skjerpelse i senere praksis

  23. Henaf: • “the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies…. • As that statement applies to the possibility of a harsher classification under Article 3, it follows that certain acts previously falling outside the scope of Article 3 might in future attain the required level of severity.”

  24. Henaf: • “Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 … • As to the Court's conclusion in Herczegfalvy,cited above, in which the shackling of a patient in a psychiatric hospital was considered “worrying” but justified on medical grounds, it cannot be transposed to the instant case or used against the applicant. In the present case, apart from the different context in that the hospital was not a psychiatric one and there was proper police supervision outside the applicant's room, no medical grounds were ever cited.” • Det ble deretter konkludert med at tiltakene var unødvendige og uproporsjonale

  25. 6 Rettigheter ved frihetsberøvelse og annen tvang 6.1 Frihetsberøvelse: Artikkel 5.2 til 5.5 6.2 Annen tvang (artiklene 3 og 8): Artikkel 13, ev. artikkel 6.

More Related