#EuropeanCourtofhumanrights

[tmarshconnors]

EU Convention on Human Rights

While my country, the United Kingdom, has left the European Union, it's essential to recognize that our relationship with Europe, particularly in terms of human rights, remains significant. One cornerstone of this relationship is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Let's delve into what this convention is all about and why it matters.

What is the European Convention on Human Rights?

The ECHR is an international treaty established to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe, it came into force on 3 September 1953. The UK was one of the founding members, and it played a crucial role in its creation.

Key Provisions of the ECHR

The ECHR consists of several Articles, each outlining specific rights and freedoms. Here's a breakdown of the most pivotal ones:

Article 2: Right to Life This article protects the right to life and includes obligations for states to investigate deaths caused by the state.

Article 3: Prohibition of Torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is an absolute right with no exceptions.

Article 4: Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labour This article ensures that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, and it also prohibits forced or compulsory labour.

Article 5: Right to Liberty and Security Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. This means no one shall be deprived of their liberty except in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.

Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial This guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Article 7: No Punishment Without Law No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time it was committed.

Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life This protects private and family life, home, and correspondence, ensuring that any interference by a public authority must be lawful and necessary.

Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This includes the freedom to change religion or belief and to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, and observance.

Article 10: Freedom of Expression This guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.

Article 11: Freedom of Assembly and Association Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions.

Article 12: Right to Marry Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the ECHR shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status.

Why the ECHR Matters

The ECHR is not just a legal document; it's a living instrument that evolves through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. This court interprets the Convention and ensures that member states adhere to their obligations, thereby providing a crucial mechanism for individuals to seek justice when their rights are violated.

The UK's Relationship with the ECHR

Despite Brexit, the UK remains a signatory to the ECHR. This means that British citizens continue to enjoy the protections it affords. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the ECHR into UK law, allowing UK courts to hear human rights cases domestically rather than referring them to Strasbourg.

However, the relationship has not been without tension. There have been debates within the UK about the scope of the ECtHR's influence and the possibility of reforming human rights legislation. Nonetheless, the principles enshrined in the ECHR remain a fundamental part of our legal landscape.

Conclusion

Understanding the European Convention on Human Rights is crucial for appreciating the legal protections we enjoy today. While political landscapes may shift, the commitment to upholding human rights endures, reflecting a shared heritage that transcends national borders. The ECHR stands as a testament to the enduring importance of human dignity and justice in Europe and beyond.

[thxnews]

UK Unveils Tough Migration Legislation Today

  The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak made a speech on illegal migration on 7 December 2023. Today the government has introduced the toughest anti-illegal immigration law ever. I know it will upset some people and you will hear a lot of criticism about it. It’s right to explain why I have decided to do this. I’m the child of immigrants… I understand why some people take the risk of getting into unsafe dinghies to cross open waters… …it’s because the United Kingdom is an incredible country… it offers opportunity, hope and safety. But the difference is… my family came here… legally. Like most immigrants, they integrated into local communities… …worked hard to provide for their family …built lives and businesses, found friends and neighbours… … and most of all… they were really proud to become British. That feeling of pride… it cascades down the generations and grows… and that’s why you see so many children of immigrants sitting around the Cabinet table. But it’s not a given… illegal immigration undermines not just our border controls… it undermines the very fairness that is so central to our national character. We play by the rules. We put in our fair share. We wait our turn. Now if some people can just cut all that out… you’ve not just lost control of your borders… you’ve fatally undermined the very fairness upon which trust in our system is based. That’s why this legislation is necessary. To deliver an effective deterrent to those who wish to come here illegally… …to restore people’s trust that the system is fair… … and ultimately: to stop the boats. And so, our Bill today fundamentally addresses the Supreme Court’s concerns over the safety of Rwanda. I did not agree with their judgement, but I respect it. That is why I have spent the last three weeks working tirelessly to respond to their concerns… …and to guarantee Rwanda’s safety in a new legally binding international treaty. The Supreme Court were clear that they were making a judgement about Rwanda at a specific moment 18 months ago…and that the problems could be remedied. Today we are confirming that they have been… …and that unequivocally, Rwanda is a safe country. And today’s Bill also ends the merry-go-round of legal challenges that have blocked our policy for too long. We simply cannot have a situation where our ability to control our borders… …and stop people taking perilous journeys across the channel… …is held up in endless litigation in our courts. So this Bill gives Parliament the chance to put Rwanda’s safety beyond question in the eyes of this country’s law. Parliament is sovereign. It should be able to make decisions that cannot be undone in the courts. And it was never the intention of international human rights laws… …to stop a sovereign Parliament removing illegal migrants to a country that is considered safe in both parliamentary statute and international law. So the Bill does include what are known as “notwithstanding” clauses. These mean that our domestic courts will no longer be able to use any domestic or international law… …including the Human Rights Act… …to stop us removing illegal migrants. Let me just go through the ways individual illegal migrants try and stay. Claiming asylum – that’s now blocked. Abuse of our Modern Slavery rules – blocked. The idea that Rwanda isn’t safe – blocked. The risk of being sent on to some other country - blocked. And spurious Human Rights claims – you’d better believe we’ve blocked those too… …because we’re completely disapplying all the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act. And not only have we blocked all these ways illegal migrants will try and stay… …we’ve also blocked their ability to try and stay by bringing a Judicial Review on any of those grounds. That means that this Bill blocks every single reason that has ever been used to prevent flights to Rwanda from taking off. The only, extremely narrow exception will be if you can prove with credible and compelling evidence… ….that you specifically have a real and imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm. We have to recognise that as a matter of law - and if we didn’t, we’d undermine the treaty we’ve just signed with Rwanda. As the Rwandans themselves have made clear… …if we go any further the entire scheme will collapse. And there’s no point having a Bill with nowhere to send people to. But I am telling you now, we have set the bar so high… …that it will be vanishingly rare for anyone to meet it. And once you have been removed, you’ll be banned for life from travelling to the UK, settling here, or becoming a citizen. But, of course, even with this new law here at home… …we could still face challenges from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So let me repeat what I said two weeks ago – I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights. If the Strasbourg Court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of our sovereign Parliament… …I will do what is necessary to get flights off. And today’s new law already makes clear that the decision on whether to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court… …is a decision for British government Ministers – and British government Ministers alone. Because it is your government – not criminal gangs, or indeed foreign courts –who decides who comes here and who stays in our country. Now of course, our Rwanda policy is just one part of our wider strategy to stop the boats. And that strategy is working. I’ve been Prime Minister for just over a year now and for the first time, small boat arrivals here are down by a third…. …even as illegal crossings of the Mediterranean have soared by 80 per cent. Let me just repeat that: small boat arrivals here are down by a third. To help achieve that, we’ve signed returns and co-operation agreements with France, Bulgaria, Turkey, Italy, and Georgia. Illegal working raids are up by nearly 70 per cent. 50 hotels are being returned to their local communities and we are housing people in a new barge and in former military sites. The initial asylum backlog is down from 92,000 to less than 20,000. We’ve returned over 22,000 illegal migrants. And as our deal with Albania shows – deterrence works. Last year, a third of all those arriving in small boats were Albanian. This year we have returned 5,000 people and cut those arrivals by 90 per cent. And Albanian arrivals have far more recourse to the courts than anyone under this new legislation. That’s why I’m so confident that this Bill will work. Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court Judge, believes this Bill will work. We will get flights off the ground. We will deter illegal migrants from coming here. And we will, finally, stop the boats.   Sources: THX News, Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street & The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP. Read the full article

[sos-colombia]

Martes 4 de Mayo 2021, 14:10 PM.

Av. Caracas con calle 76 sur.

Av. Caracas con calle 53 sur.

Av. Boyacá con calle 71 Sur.

Manifestaciones actuales en Bogotá.

[rightsinexile]

Will the ECHR shake up the European asylum system?

This article was written by Dana Schmalz, visiting scholar at the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility at The New School, New York. It was originally published by the German-based Verfassungsblog. It is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license.

In early 2017, a possible bouleversement of the European Asylum system appeared on the horizon. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had to decide the case X and X, concerning a Syrian family who had applied for visas at the Belgian embassy in Lebanon in order to enter Belgium and seek asylum. Was Belgium obliged to issue such “humanitarian visa”? Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi in his opinion suggested that it was: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter) prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment and binds a member state whenever applying European Union law. Where refusing a visa in application of the EU Visa Code would expose a person to a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, Mengozzi argued, the visa must therefore be granted. The opinion was sound in that it relied on the EU Charter’s scope of application (Article 51), which is not territorially defined; nevertheless had a revolutionary touch, since it departed from the conception that states have obligations towards asylum-seekers only as far as those are on their territory or at the border.

The ECJ in March 2017 did not follow Mengozzi’s opinion. Focusing on the intended duration of stay, it held that the issuance of visas had not been a matter of EU law but rather national law and therefore not governed by the EU Charter. Despite this matter-of-fact ruling by the ECJ, the case of X and X highlighted a deep-seated dilemma of fundamental rights protection. For persons whose life and safety depend above all on the possibility to escape a country, rights provisions that bind states only towards those already on the territory are largely meaningless. But the case also illustrated how difficult it is to move beyond that territorial conception of state obligations.

All the more remarkable is that a case with largely parallel facts is now pending before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Nahhas and Hadri v. Belgium equally concerns a Syrian family, who in 2016 applied for visas to travel to Belgium and seek asylum. The legal framework for the decision is obviously different: while the ECJ had been called to decide about the interpretation of the Visa Code in combination with the EU Charter, the ECtHR will have to rule on a possible violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). But the broader task faced by the court is the same: to give meaning to fundamental rights in the context of forced migration. In that sense, the decision in Nahhas and Hadri will be a next chapter in an ongoing conversation.

The facts of the case Nahhas and Hadri

Mohamad Nahhas and Bushra Hadri, together with their two children, Omar and Taima Nahhas, had applied for visas in the Belgian embassy in Beirut on 22 August 2016. (This was around two months prior to the claimants in case X and X.) As stated in the documents of the Belgian courts, the family was living at an uncle’s house in Aleppo after their own home had been destroyed, finding themselves in constant fear for their lives and in dire conditions, without electricity and without access to drinking water. At that time, refugees were no longer registered in Lebanon, and even registered refugees lived under very precarious conditions. Especially with their two young children, neither staying in Lebanon seemed conceivable, nor traveling onwards by land, since borders to Turkey were closed. When applying for visas, Nahhas and Hadri had already established a connection with a Belgian family who was willing to host them and bear all costs.

The Belgian Office des Étrangers (OE) denied their request for a visa, pointing out that the intended duration of stay exceeded 90 days – Nahhas and Hadri had openly stated that they planned to apply for asylum in Belgium. Against the visa denial, Nahhas and Hadri filed for an interim injunction before Belgian courts, arguing that the assessment did not sufficiently take into consideration their fundamental rights positions. The Belgian Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (CCE) granted the injunction, urging the OE to consider in its decision article 3 of the ECHR – the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, and suggesting that Nahhas and Hadri might have a valid claim in light of that provision. The OE objected, and a legal back and forth between the OE and the CCE followed. Eventually, the case was referred to the Cour d’Appel, which overturned the initial decision of the CCE. Against that background, Nahhas and Hadri submitted an application to the ECtHR.

The questions that the ECtHR has to decide are clear-cut. Did Belgium have jurisdiction over Nahhas and Hadri when denying their visa requests? And if so, did the denial violate the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment? In addition, given the proceeding before the Belgian courts and the refusal of the OE to follow the order of the CCE, the applicants raise claims under article 6 para. 1 ECHR, the right to a fair trial, and article 13 ECHR, the right to an effective remedy. There is no doubt about the significance of the case: several governments and non-governmental organizations have intervened with submissions and the initial chamber relinquished jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber.

The interpretation of “jurisdiction”

The key question of the case will be if Belgium’s visa decision meant jurisdiction over Nahhas and Hadri. And it really is an open question. The interpretation of jurisdiction can build on prior jurisprudence of the ECtHR and other courts, but it ultimately depends on a broader conception of how to delimitate the obligations of states.

According to Article 1 of the ECHR, the contracting parties are obliged to secure the convention rights to everyone within their jurisdiction. Jurisdiction generally exists on the territory of a state, but it can also exist extra-territorially, if a state exercises effective control over persons. The criterion of effective control has been interpreted by the court mostly as a physical control. In cases such as Al-Skeini and Jaloud, the court detailed the conditions of extra-territorial jurisdiction in military operations. In the case Hirsi Jamaa, the court held that migrants intercepted in the Mediterranean and brought on board of a ship by Italian coast guards where within the jurisdiction of Italy. Clearly, the situation of Nahhas and Hadri was a different one. There was no immediate physical control of the embassy staff over them, they entered and left the embassy at discretion. Thought-provoking is the comparison to the case M. v. Denmark, in which a man trying to leave East Germany had entered the Danish Embassy in East Berlin and, after refusing to leave, was eventually handed over by the ambassador to the German police. The European Commission of Human Rights, deciding at the time about the admissibility of cases, held that M. had been within Denmark’s jurisdiction. The case was dissimilar from the situation of Nahhas and Hadri, since at stake was the physical presence in the embassy. Nevertheless, the two cases compare since the embassy agents held the key to protect those seeking refuge. Can the refusal to hand over this key constitute jurisdiction?

What is indisputable is that it is disputes. The same acts of state agents can often be framed as action or as omission. Whether a state exercised physical control over a person will be obvious in some cases, but in other cases will depend on what one chooses as frames of time and space. And the interpretation of extraterritorial jurisdiction along the lines of physical control is as such not cast in stone. From the prior jurisprudence, it seems likely that the court would deny the jurisdiction of Belgium. What speaks in favor of another outcome are the profound problems that the territorial conception of state obligations creates in the context of migration.

Universal rights, particular obligations

The questions that the interpretation of jurisdiction raises should be considered against the background of the tension that pervades universal rights treaties and their adjudication. On the one hand, basic rights and freedoms such as the right to life and the prohibition of torture apply without qualifications as to the nationality, legal status, or other characteristics of the person. They are universal in the sense that we recognize every person should enjoy these basic rights and freedoms. On the other hand, the corresponding obligations of states are, and have to be, specific. Not every state has to actively secure the rights of individuals everywhere. The criterion of jurisdiction serves to delimitate the responsibility of states. This delimitation is in general not a problem for the safeguarding of rights, since there is always one state responsible. It can become a problem, however, in the context of migration.

The dilemma of a territorial delimitation of state obligations

Migration governance is marked by the tension between a state’s legitimate interest to control access to the territory, and the commitment to refugee protection and migrants’ fundamental rights. The territorial conception of obligations here translates into a rift regarding the rights of migrants: Those who reach the territory or otherwise are under the jurisdiction of the respective state have substantive procedural and material rights, including the right to an individual assessment of their asylum claim. Those who do not reach the territory have no rights at all. This rift would not be so dramatic if it would not also mean that states can prevent the access of asylum-seekers without engendering legal liability. The court’s interpretation of jurisdiction in that sense outlines how states may hinder migrants to reach their territory without violating the convention. The case Hirsi Jamaa affirmed that extra-territorial jurisdiction existed where migrants were taken on board of a ship – but it thereby also sketched how maritime interception might take place without jurisdiction over the persons intercepted.

The territorial delimitation of state obligations – and I include in the notion the interpretation of extra-territorial jurisdiction along the lines of physical control – thus creates, firstly, a problematic incentive for states to deter the access of migrants. The effect of this incentive on the overall goal of refugee protection is enormous: it is visible in the proliferation of border fences and it contributes to a dysfunctional system, in which states compete in hindering migration and dispelling asylum-seekers. Secondly, the territorial delimitation of state obligations gives rise to a free zone for state actions which can have substantive, possibly fatal, effects on migrants’ lives, without legal responsibility. Thirdly, the arrangement of obligations along lines of territory and physical control disadvantages less physically able migrants. Under the current regime, a person’s access to protection often depends on her ability to put up with harsh conditions and obstacles in reaching a state. In theory, the particularity of obligations might not be in conflict with the universality of rights; in practice, it often is.

What to expect from a responsible judgment?

Is there a legal response to the dilemma of a territorial delimitation of state obligations? Would a different interpretation of jurisdiction solve the problem? The foremost thing to hope for, is that the court will not pass lightly over these issues. Judge Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque in his concurring opinion to the case Hirsi Jamaa described the core issue of the case as the question “how Europe should recognize that refugees have the ‘right to have rights’”. This holds true also for the case Nahhas and Hadri, and no matter how the court will rule, one can expect that it acknowledges the substantial theoretical, historical and political weight of the questions involved.

Albuquerque in this concurring opinion also argued in favor of a state obligation to grant a visa if a person is in danger of being tortured and asks for asylum in an embassy of a State bound by the EHCR. If no other escape is possible, the Convention might impose in such circumstances a positive duty on states under Article 3, Albuquerque suggested. The pressure from the side of state governments against such interpretation will, beyond doubt, be massive. They fear the “specter” of an “uncontrolled flood of applications”, as Mengozzi framed it so pertinently in his opinion to the X and X case. To address that fear, Mengozzi emphasized the particular vulnerability of the Syrian family. Not everybody applying for visas in order to flee a country would be in a comparable situation, he maintained, the obligation would remain reserved for extreme cases.

This indicates that a less territorially focused conception of the reach of human rights obligations would likely come with the delimitation of state obligations along other lines, such as the notion of vulnerability. On the one hand, a wider interpretation of jurisdiction could thus counteract some of the structural dysfunctionalities we see in the context of migration and fundamental rights, which can be an important achievement. On the other hand, the tension between universal rights and particular obligations will remain, and we should carefully look out how other criteria of delimitation endanger the access to rights.

The opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in the case X and X and the concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque in the Hirsi case were remarkable interventions that, beside their legal merits, illustrated also the political role of fundamental rights adjudication. Too accustomed have we often become to the limits of state obligations to note how they can make the promise of universal rights fade into hypocrisy. It is crucial that in light of concrete cases the drawing of boundaries is reconsidered – to ask what the law requires, and to render visible the responsibility we have to mitigate shortcomings of the law. The case Nahhas and Hadri v. Belgium should be an instance that challenges our taken-for-granted assumptions about the reach of obligations. At least in that sense, it will hopefully shake up the European asylum system.

[femmecommetoi]

story

It was 1969. Sidney Golder, a man sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for committing a violent robbery, was serving his sentence in a prison of Great Britain.

During an evening, a serious riot broke in a recreational area of the prison where Golder happened to be. One of the injured prison officers wrongly accused Golder of taking part in the disturbance.

Golder unsuccessfully claimed that he had nothing to do with the riot. He attempted to contact his MP about the incident and sought advice from his solicitor to sue the officer for libel. However, the Home Secretary withheld him from taking both of these actions.

It later came to light that Golder had indeed not participated in the riot and he was not charged. Yet, his prison record reflected the officer’s accusations. Golder believed that this prevented him from being recommended by the local parole board for parole.

He brought a claim before the ECHR and won.

In the first ever judgment against the UK, the ECHR held that the prison violated Article 6 (‘right to a fair trial’) and Article 8 (‘right to correspondence’) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

                                      This story is a short summary of a legal decision. Read the full case here.

“The European Court of Human Rights said that the state violated Golder’s right to access the courts, as well as his right to respect for correspondence. It was not necessary in a democratic society for the Home Secretary to stop him from consulting with his solicitor. Golder should have been able to write to his solicitor as he was trying to prove his innocence from the prison’s accusations.

His case shows that the state has a duty to ensure that every person has a right to go to court, regardless of whether they are prisoners or not. In the words of the European court: “one can scarcely conceive of the rule of law without there being a possibility of having access to the courts.” –  https://rightsinfo.org/stories/access-to-justice/ .

[suburbass]

For all our friends in Colombia , estamos con ustedes Parceros 🌹🖤💥💥🔥✊✊🏻✊🏿✊🏾✊🏽🇨🇴 with @jacidorex @sonico_techsound @xntrickrave #pazparacolombia #protest #NosEstanMatando #comisioninteramericanadederechoshumanos #EuropeanCourtofHumanRights #amnistiainternacional #civilrightsdefenders #HumanRightsDefenders #humanrightswhithoutfrontiers #physiciansforhumanrights #globalrights #humanrights #SOS #Colombia #soscolombia #ColombiaAlertaRoja #ParoNacional #UribeDioLaOrden #duqueparelamasacre #DuqueRenuncie #NosEstánMatando (à Tunja Boyaca) https://www.instagram.com/p/CPAiD5mhXPq/?utm_medium=tumblr

[fla9502]

"SI UN PUEBLO SALE A PROTESTAR EN PANDEMIA, ES XQ EL GOBIERNO ES MAS PELIGROSO Q EL VIRUS" ¿Q ESTÁ PASANDO EN COLOMBIA? 🇨🇴 El gobierno ultraderechista d Ivàn Duque en Colombia decidió presentar una Reforma Tributaria en medio d una pandemia, èsto implica subir los impuestos afectando a miles d colombianos (especialmente clase media y baja) pues los costos d sus necesidades básicas se verían muy afectados Miles d colombianos salieron a manifestarse en contra d èsto y ls están MATANDO x ejercer sus derechos constitucionales. No ls dejan marchar ni protestar, ls reprimen y no pueden refutar ante la corrupción del gobierno. Están prácticamente en una batalla civil 🚨🚨🚨 El ESMAD (Escuadròn Mòvil AntiDisturbios) tiene la orden d atacar con todo a los ciudadanos manifestantes. Hay múltiples casos d asesinatos, abuso d autoridad, abusos sexuales, violencia policial contra los defensores d los DDHH, ancians, niñs, TODS. No hay suficientes refugios, médics ni equipos d defensa para ls ciudadans. #comisioninteramericanadederechoshumanos #EuropeanCourtofHumanRights #amnistiainternacional #civilrightsdefenders #HumanRightsDefenders #humanrightswhithoutfrontiers #physiciansforhumanrights #globalrights #humanrights #SOS #Colombia #soscolombia #ColombiaAlertaRoja #ParoNacional #UribeDioLaOrden #duqueparelamasacre #DuqueRenuncie #NosEstánMatando https://www.instagram.com/p/COdtNn3LwEo5Hs5pRgmcPK_E5nsz1JpeP_BwXQ0/?igshid=15chrq24k5vy6

[josstayinalife]

SOS COLOMBIA

in colombia the strike continues

and the government still thinks that militarizing the capitals is the answer, while here we still have covid quarentine and the goverment never buyed a significant amount of vaccines.

the colombian goverment never cared about colombians health. and the 19 confirmed dead people send a deep message to us protestors. and is that the goverment is not gonna take on responsability for any of the crimes against humanity.

most of politicians are tweeting about o posible internet black out, other are encouraging police to shoot on protestors

[jhoper88]

Ayúdenos taggeando a organismos internacionales necesitamos que todos sepan que el gobierno nos está matando COPIA Y PEGA #comisioninteramericanadederechoshumanos #europeancourtofhumanrights #amnistiainternacional #civilrightsdefenders #humanrightswithoutfrontiers #physiciansforhumanrights #globalrights #humanrights #sos #colombia #soscolombia #colombiaalertaroja #paronacional https://www.instagram.com/p/COc9J-0hkXn/?igshid=c9xaz45jmgs3

[sos-colombia]

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-56910570

Nos están matando.

[andreilawechr-blog]

Европейский суд по правам человека вынес очередное решение по вопросу пыток сотрудниками МВД России. Так, решением ЕСПЧ от 02.07.2019, установлен факт пыток в отношении местного жителя сотрудниками МВД города Орска, задержанного по подозрению в убийстве. Прокуратура и Суд проигнорировали факты насилия в отношении осужденного. Тщательной проверки доводов не проводили. Сумма компенсации морального вреда составила 26 000 евро. Добиться справедливости и получить внушительную материальную компенсацию может каждый. При этом для этого совершенно необязательно лично участвовать в судебных разбирательствах. Подробности в тексте решения. #echr #europiancourt #europeancourtofhumanrights #europiancourtofhumanrights #еспч #еспчадвокат #еспч2019 #еспчжалоба #еспчюрист #европейскийсуд #европейскийсудпоправамчеловека #жалобаеспч #адвокатеспч #юристонлайн #юристеспч https://www.instagram.com/p/B1WcQCUhxPJ/?igshid=1xjrdcpw0zbaz

[bymusademircii]

“ Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin' En Genç Yargıcı ” ünvanını kazanmayı, Kim hak eder diye sorsalar, Tüm samimiyetimle, Elbette ki, Bir Türk Kadını hak eder derdim, Ne mutlu ki öyle de oldu. Kadın inanırsa başarır ! Gururla... Başarılar Saadet Yüksel 👏👏 #bymusademirci 🎗️ #SaadetYüksel #EuropeanCourtofHumanRights #kadınhakları #womensrightsarehumanrights #womensmarch #AİHM #Women #Kadın #kadındanalmalı #kadınvarsahayatvar #kadınheryerde #a #Dünyakadınhakları #kadınherşeydir #kadınayönelikşiddetehayır #kadındemekhayatdemek #kadınvehayatadair #kadinhaklari @bymusademirci | Twitter & Instagram © 2019 Musa Demirci https://www.instagram.com/p/Bzna6EBhlIs/?igshid=10efj1o5nq4wt

[insxno]

En Colombia el pasado 28 de Abril se inició un Paro Nacional en protesta a una nueva reforma tributaria que se encontraba en proceso, el pueblo se puso en pie de lucha, muchas personas salieron a marchar en contra de todas las injusticias que se viven actualmente en el país, como todas las marchas al principio fueron muy pacíficas, solo personas cantando arengas, caminando, movimiendo sus banderas de un lado a otro, fueron bloqueadas muchas avenidas principales para que el paro se sintiera verdaderamente, hasta que la policía y los integrantes del ESMAD (ESCUADRONES MÓVILES ANTIDISTURBIOS) abrieron fuego en contra de los manifestantes, utilizando aturdidoras, grases lacrimogenos y demás elementos para dispersar a las personas.

En muchas ciudades ocurrió esto, sin embargo, los ciudadanos seguimos marchando y luchando por nuestros derechos, en estos momentos, la ciudad más afectada por el paro ha sido la ciudad de Cali, en donde muchos jovenes, estudiantes y protestantes se unieron para hacerle fuerza a todo lo que estaba ocurriendo, en Cali los policias se encuentran disparando a civiles con armas letales, estan generando apagones en la noche para que no se sepa quien disparó, han resultado implicados personas que ni siquiera se encontraban protestando, se han llevado la vida de niños y mujeres, han violentado a mujeres y nadie ha hecho nada, los medios no están informando lo que realmente pasa, lo que todos conocemos lo sabemos por el voz a voz que se ha generado por medio de redes sociales.

En este momento Colombia se esta desangrando, necesitamos apoyo para compartir esta información, que nos entiendan y dejen de reprimir nuestra voz, voto y derecho que tenemos como ciudadanos.

Por favor compartan este post, Colombia los necesita.

#comisioninteramericanadederechoshumanos

#EuropeanCourtofHumanRights

#amnistiainternacional

#HumanRightsDefenders

#Humanrightswhithoutfrontiers

#physiciansforhumanrights #globalrights

#humanrights #SOS #colombia #soscolombia

#ColombiaAlertaRoja #ParoNacional #UribeDioLaOrden

#duqueparelamasacre #DuqueRenuncie

#NosEstánMatando

#COLOMBIAUNIDA

En Colombia nos están matando.

En Colombia los medios nos quieren censurar, por favor ayúdenos a difundir toda la información.

[escritos-de-una-anonima]

#comisioninteramericanadederechoshumanos

#EuropeanCourtofHumanRights

#amnistiainternacional

#civilrightsdefenders

#HumanRightsDefenders

#humanrightswhithoutfrontiers

#physiciansforhumanrights #globalrights

#humanrights #SOS #Colombia #soscolombia #ColombiaAlertaRoja #ParoNacional #UribeDioLaOrden #duqueparelamasacre #DuqueRenuncie #NosEstánMatando

[its-ninico]

Colombia is being massacred, and all of us, absolutely all of us have to know what is happening. It's something that, as a Venezuelan, I've lived. That many people with me have witnessed, even other countries, other people, they know what happens, and why it happens. Colombia is on alert, not because of covid, but because of a much worse plague. Colombia, like many other countries, is a victim of corruption and the abuse of power by those who have the capacity to answer for an entire population that is being murdered, tortured and silenced. And why am I talking about this if I don't live there? because we as a neighboring country, we as humans, as habitants of this earth, we have to make conscience of what is happening. people who lose loved ones, friends and confidants to an unscrupulous murderer in command.

don't ignore this, this IS happening right now. the creator of wynter, the couple of my character lucas (we both role-play the story of both), is Colombian, she's living this situation. It hurts me a lot, because during these months knowing her, soon a year, she has earned my affection both as a person and as a character. She, like so many Colombians, is suffering from being the victim of a murderous and corrupt government, just as I and many other Venezuelans were. this is for her and for all Colombians who are suffering. you have to make everyone know. Colombia is being KILLED. If you want to know what is happening, ask a Colombian who is living this horrible situation, DON'T let yourself be guided by the yellow press. to support and inform about this you can use the hashtags: #Colombia #humanrightsdefenders #comisioninteramericanadederechoshumanos #globalrights #physiciansforhumanrights #soscolombia #ParoNacional #Colombiaalertaroja #DuqueRenuncie #duqueparelamasacre #SOS #civilrightsdefenders #amnistiainternacional #EuropeanCourtofHumanRights

strength, colombia.

[lad00sblog]

🆘🆘🆘🆘🆘🆘🇨🇴🇨🇴🇨🇴Hacemos un llamado a todas las personas de los diferentes paises. Les pedimos con urgencia que le cuenten al mundo que Colombia está en peligro, los colombianos estamos viviendo uno de los momentos más difíciles en toda su historia.

#comisioninteramericanadederechoshumanos #EuropeanCourtofhumanrights #amnistiainternacional #civilrightsdefenders #humanrightswithoutfrontiers #physiciansforhumanrights #globalrights #humanrights #SOS #Colombia #soscolombia #Colombiaalertaroja #Paronacional #Uribediolaorden #Duqueparelamasacre #Duquerenuncie #Nosestanmatando