150 / 262
should be obligatory for all the signatories and certainly
for any new parties to the Convention.
(3) The parties entitled to bring applications to the
European Commission form at the moment too narrow
a category. I would endorse the suggestion by Professor
Rory O'Hanlon that certain international organisations
should have the right to take cases before the Commis-
sion without being victims of a breach themselves. The
International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty Inter-
national would be obvious candidates.
(4) The European Convention would seem to have a
part to play in the national situation. Since the White
Paper on Northern Ireland has declared the intention of
the British Government to grant a Charter of Human
Rights to Northern Ireland, would it not be possible
for the European Convention to form a common base
for Human Rights in all parts of Ireland. Could there
not be a Commission of Human Rights for Ireland com-
posed of an equal number of judges from North and
South, with if necessary, an independent chairman such
as the judge of the European Court of Human Rights,
to supervise the implementation of human rights in the
country. This does seem to be the sort of co-operation
in the context of European unity that would find accep-
tance in both parts of Ireland. An appeal could lie to
the organs of the Convention in Strasbourg.
(5) I would advocate the establishment in the Oir-
eachtas of a Human Rights Committee which would
examine proposed legislation and see that it conformed
with the standards required by our international obli-
gations. This would be in line with the recommenda-
tion of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of
Europe last October.
(6) There is a need for a European Ombudsman or
Attorney-General for Europe who could initiate pro-
ceedings before the European Commission on his own
initiative and investigate the implementation by mem-
bers of their obligations under the Convention. At pre-
sent under Article 57 the Secretary-General of the
Council of Europe may require an account from mem-
ber States of their implementation of the provisions of
the Convention. Though it has been used it does not
seem to have realised its full promise and this might
lend new life to it. The unwillingness to take pro-
ceedings against Greece by some States is stressed.
The spreading of information about the Convention
should be maintained. It is surprising that Constitu-
tional Law is not required by the Law Society in their
examinations. The Law Society could sponsor a lecture
on Human Rights. There are disturbing reports from
Greece and Turkey about infringement of Human
rights, and the Amnesty campaign against torture
should be encouraged.
Mr. Justice Thomas Finlay proposed the customary
resolution that the best thanks of the Society are due
to the Auditor. He said that the European Convention
of Human Rights was an effective and meaningful
multi-national binding agreement, which contained
basic radical concepts. The concepts of an effective
Court, and of the right of individual petition were new.
There was a splendid new concept, by which any State
could bring before the Commission breaches of human
rights: thus the Scandinavian States had presented a
well-documented case against Greece, which tried to
fight back strenuously, but in the end left the Council
of Europe.
Mr. Justice Finlay thought that the European Con-
vention of Human Rights should definitely form part
of Irish domestic law : as we had accepted the laws of
the Community, this concept of incorporation was
nothing new. There was no inconsistency between the
Human Rights enumerated in the Irish Constitution
and those set out in the European Convention. It would
then be easier for an Irish individual to enforce his
rights in the domestic Courts of the Republic, instead
of having to resort to Strasbourg.
Mr. Justice Finlay also stressed that once an indivi-
dual applicant had exhausted his domestic remedies
and had got the Commission to agree to admit his
case—which was the crucial test—from then on he
should be granted legal aid, and his costs should be
paid out of an international fund. We appear to be
obsessed by the European Community to the extent
that our rights and duties under the European Conven-
tion of Human Rights have been overshadowed.
Mr.
Justice Philip O'Donoghue,
the Irish Judge of
the European Court of Human Rights, said that as he
had discovered as a member of the Commission for
seven years, and as a Judge for the last year, the impor-
tance of the European Convention was precisely that
specific rights were enumerated. This was not a new
development, but had started with Magna Charta, and
with the subsequent recognition of the writ of
Habeas
Corpus.
What is called the Continental procedure of
Habeas Corpus
is now contained in Article 5 (4) of the
Convention. There was no doubt but that the Conven-
tion should be part of domestic law, particularly as
many matters were already covered by existing law. It
would not be necessary then for the applicant to exhaust
all domestic remedies. When Ireland ratified the Con-
vention in 1953 she was one of the few countries who
did so without reference to any specified time: it was
to be noted that neither Switzerland nor France had
yet ratified the Convention. He emphasised how useful
it would be if a more constant study of European
institutions were undertaken in Irish universities.
Mr.
John
Temple
Lang,
solicitor, stated that there
was no doubt that some parts of the European
Convention should be made part of the Irish Consti-
tution so that they would be subject to judicial
review : undoubtedly the subjective Minister's opinion
under the 1940 Act would require to be re-considered;
the right of privacy as well as many procedural rights
arising from the
Haughey case
(1971 I.R.) deserve
consideration. The provisions of the Convention should
also be the basis for a far-reaching charter of Human
Rights as envisaged by the White Paper on Northern
Ireland. One of the deficiencies of the Convention ap-
pears to be that nothing can prevent the philosophy of
a particular religious denomination from being domi-
nant in a particular State. There is no restriction in the
Convention upon changing the laws of evidence. It
should be clearly understood that the unsubstantiated
police evidence permitted by the Offences against the
State (Amendment) Act 1972 is a clear infringement of
the Convention : there are also serious abuses of the
Criminal Law under the Forcible Entry Act. The ques-
tion of police brutality in the Republic was one of the
gravest concern, and should be investigated. The new
Government should undoubtedly adopt the Convention,
so that eventually an all-Ireland Commission on Human
Rights could be established. We should have joined the
Scandinavian States in their indictment against Greece
and bodies like Amnesty International should be allowed
to bring cases against victims of dictatorial regimes.
149