Europe

High Court’s Decision in Northern Ireland Puts Pressure on the Legislature to Liberalize Abortion Laws

By: Madison Kenyon 

Impunity Watch Staff Writer 

BELFAST, Ireland — On Thursday, October 3, the high court in Belfast, Ireland held that Northern Ireland’s abortion law violates human rights. Specifically, Justice Keegan, the presiding judge, found that the law is incompatible with the United Kingdom’s human rights commitments. Justice Keegan will hear more submissions before deciding what definitive action to take.

Sarah Ewart and her mother after the October ruling. Photo Courtesy of BBC.

The current abortion law in place in Northern Ireland only permits an abortion in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother or prevent permanent mental or physical damage of the mother. There is no exception for rape, incest, or fatal fetal abnormalities. Further, abortion is a criminal offense under the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Due to this law, women who seek an abortion must travel outside of Northern Ireland in order to get one. Although England, Scotland, and Wales all legalized abortions in 1967, Northern Ireland did not follow suit.

In June 2018, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission brought a case in the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court challenging Northern Ireland’s abortion law. The court dismissed the case though because it found that the Commission lacked standing and rather the case needed to be brought by a woman who had been denied an abortion. The court did state however, that Northern Ireland’s abortion law was incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Following this dismissal, in January 2019, Sarah Ewart brought the present case. Ms. Ewart had previously been denied an abortion in 2013 even though her doctor told her that the child would either die during birth or shortly after leaving the womb. Along with being denied an abortion, she did not receive any advice as to where she could get an abortion or what she should do. Thus, Ms. Ewart had to travel to London in order to obtain an abortion. Justice Keegan found Ms. Ewart’s testimony to be very persuasive and she held that she did not think another woman should have to go through the same trauma that Ms. Ewart went through.

Regarding Thursday’s decision, Ms. Ewart stated, “Today’s ruling is a turning point for women in their campaign against the outdated laws prohibiting against abortion in Northern Ireland.” As Ms. Ewart suggests, this is definitely a step towards liberalizing Northern Ireland’s abortion law however, it is still very dependent on how the legislature reacts to this decision. Yet, this is not the only pressure the legislature has received to change Northern Ireland’s abortion law. Rather, in July 2019, the British Parliament voted on a plan that would decriminalize abortion in Northern Ireland if the local government, which stopped functioning in January 2017, did not re-establish itself by October 21. Thus, with an upcoming deadline, the legislature must act fast and in compliance with Thursday’s holding, or the court should expect a lot more cases like Ms. Ewart’s.

For further information, please see: 

The Hill – High Court Rules Northern Ireland’s Abortion Ban Violates Human Rights – 3 Oct. 2019

AlJazeera – Northern Ireland Abortion Law Breaches Human Rights, Court Says – 3 Oct. 2019

CNN – Northern Ireland Abortion Law Breaches Human Rights, High Court Rules – 3 Oct. 2019

House of Commons: Women and Equalities Committee – Abortion Law in Northern Ireland – 3 Apr. 2019

 

Belfast Court Finds Abortion Ban Violates Human Rights Obligations

By: Hannah Gabbard

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

BELFAST, United Kingdom — On October 3, 2019, the High Court in Belfast ruled that the abortion law in Northern Ireland, which banned abortion in all cases except when a mother’s life is at risk, violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Under the abortion law in Northern Ireland, rape, incest, or a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality (“FFA”) are not grounds for a lawful abortion. 

Sarah Ewart, left, leaves the Belfast High Court. Photo Courtesy of CNN.

In 2013, Sarah Ewart, the applicant, travelled to England to terminate her pregnancy after an ultrasound scan at 20 weeks revealed that Ewart’s baby would either die before or shortly after delivery. Ewart was denied an abortion under the law even though her pregnancy was a case of FFA. Due to the law, Ewart was not allowed to bring the remains of her daughter back into Northern Ireland to allow for an autopsy. Ewart claimed that legislation preventing an abortion in cases of FFA violated domestic, human rights and international law and was incompatible with Article 8 of ECHR which guarantees the right to respect for private life. Additionally, she challenged the Departments of Justice and Heath for failing to implement measures to comply with Article 8 of ECHR.

Ewart brought the case after a United Kingdom Supreme Court judgement in June 2018 found that Northern Ireland’s abortion law was inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 8 of ECHR. The UK Supreme Court could not attach a declaration of incompatibility to the law because the original applicant, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, was not a “victim” of any unlawful act. In Ewart’s case, Justice Siobhan Keegan followed the ruling from the UK Supreme Court that the law was incompatible with human rights. In following the ruling, Justice Keegan’s judgement concerned whether Ewart had standing and if so, whether declaratory relief would be appropriate. 

Justice Keegan found that Ewart had standing because she had to travel to seek an abortion due to the current law and she is at risk to be affected by the law in the future because of her continued risk to have a baby with FFA. Further submissions to the court are required before Justice Keegan will decide on an appropriate relief. 

Abortion rights are highly contested in Northern Ireland due to the religious influences of the Protestant and Catholic communities. Pressure to ease the abortion restrictions had mounted in Northern Ireland after Ireland voted to end the constitutional ban on abortion in May 2018. 

The implications of this ruling are uncertain in Northern Ireland due to the simultaneous legislation proposed in the British Parliament. In 2017, Northern Ireland’s regional government became decentralized when a power-sharing agreement between Protestant and Catholic political parties failed. In July 2019, United Kingdom legislators voted for the Northern Ireland to decriminalize abortion and extend same-sex marriage if the regional government is not restored by October 21. 

This ruling in Northern Ireland contributes to the larger conversation on abortion rights internationally. In the United States, President Trump introduced international version of the “gag rule”  in 2018 where international health clinics that either provide or refer women to abortion services are no longer permitted to receive US development funding. The restriction of abortion services push women to seek abortion in dangerous settings or, in the case of Sarah Ewart, travel overseas to access an abortion.

While acknowledging the pending legislative action in her judgement, Justice Keegan stated that the prospect of upholding the abortion ban would not “serve any benefit” or “be right to ask another woman to relieve the trauma these events undoubtedly cause.” 

For further information, please see:

BBC – Northern Ireland abortion law found to breach human rights – 3 Oct. 2019

CNN – Northern Ireland abortion law breaches human rights, high court rules – 3 Oct. 2019

Judicial Communications Office – Court Delivers Abortion Legislation Judgement – 3 Oct. 2019

Reuters – Court rules Northern Ireland abortion ban violates UK human rights commitments – 3 Oct. 2019

CNN – Women in Northern Ireland to get access to abortion services in Republic – 15 Nov. 2018

 

EHCR Rejects Said Mansour’s Request to Block Denmark Deportation

By: Brianna Ferrante
Impunity Watch News Reporter

RABAT, MOROCCO- The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously rejected Moroccan Said Mansour’s appeal against being deported from Denmark for his terror-related convictions in fear of being subjected to torture.

 

Said Mansour prior to his deportation from Denmark. Photo courtesy of Carl Redhead

A court in Denmark had previously convicted Mansour in July of 2015 on charges related to the editing and publishing of three books and multiple Facebook posts considered to be terrorist propaganda.

The works were written and distributed by Mansour for the purposes of praising Osama Bin Laden and encouraging readers and followers to join an al-Queada affiliate in Syria known as the al-Nursa Front. Mansour was sentenced to four years in prison and had his Denmark citizenship revoked.

Additionally, the Moroccan ambassador to Denmark has previously stated Mansour is suspected for his alleged involvement in a 2003 terror attack that claimed the lives of 42 people in Casablanca. Since his release from prison, he was deported to Morocco on January 4th.

Mansour’s appeal to the ECHR was premised on Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which he alleged his deportation would directly conflict with.

Article 3 prohibits anyone from being subjected to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment of punishment. Mansour argued that he would be in danger in the north African country, due to his publicized criticisms of its king and the government.

The ECHR rejected this claim unanimously, relying  on international reports that the human rights situation in Morocco has generally improved over several years, and that the authorities have been working to improve and increase compliance with internationally mandated human rights standards.

For more information, please see:

The Local Denmark- European Court of Human Rights Upholds Danish Deportation of Former Citizen Who Incited Terror. February 14, 2019. 

Morocco World News- ECHR Rejects Said Mansour’s Request Against Deportation. February 15, 2019.

Yaabiladi English- European Court of Human Rights Endorses Mansour’s Deportation. February 15, 2019.

European Human Rights Court Orders Italy to Pay Damages to Amanda Knox

By: Brianna Ferrante
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights has ordered Italy to pay $20,000 in damages to Amanda Knox, an American student studying abroad who spent four years in an Italian prison before being acquitted for the 2007 murder of her then-roommate, Meredith Kercher.

 

Amanda Knox during the the 2009 trial. Photo courtesy of AP News P.P Cito.

A seven-judge panel of the ECHR concluded Italy was at fault for failing to provide Knox a lawyer during the initial police interrogation beginning on November 1, 2007. The court specifically referenced Knox’s vulnerability at that time as a foreign young woman, very new to the country, and not fluent in the language.

Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were the initial suspects in the sexual assault and murder of Kercher, a London native who was placed as Knox’s roommate while also studying abroad in Perugia. The pair was convicted of sexual assault and murder in 2009, but Knox was convicted of an additional charge for the malicious accusation of Diya Lumumba- a local bar manager, for alleging his responsibility for Kercher’s murder. Knox retracted these statements shortly after, but police did not strike it from their records and the conviction still stands.

In her complaint to the ECHR, Knox alleged she was subjected to gross and inhumane treatment while in police custody, citing specific instances where she was slapped, deprived of sleep, food, and water, and was forced to speak at times under extreme psychological stress and pressure without an attorney present despite her requests.

Knox’s initial complaint during the trial was dismissed by the court as being unsubstantiated, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove the maltreatment she was alleging. The initial interrogation went on for 53 hours over a period of five days, without a lawyer, and solely in Italian.

Ivory Coast native Rudy Hermann Guede was later convicted for Kercher’s murder, after DNA linked him to the crime, and is serving a 16-year sentence. While Italy’s Court of Cassation overturned Sollecito and Knox’s convictions citing lack of evidence in May of 2015, Knox’s charge for malicious accusation remains and is the subject of a pending appeal.

The court held that Italy’s failure to provide either a lawyer or professional interpreter negatively affected the legal proceedings and accuracy of the information she was giving during the interrogation. The award was comprised of €10,400 in damages, and €8,000 for legal costs and related expenses, approximately $20,000.

Attorneys for Knox hopes this ruling will be persuasive in their appeal of the malicious accusation charge.

For more information, please visit:

NPR- Italy ordered to pay damages to Amanda Knox- January 24, 2019.

Daily Mail UK- European court awards Amanda Knox damages for having her rights violated in her murder trial- January 24, 2019.

POLITICO- Court orders Italy to pay damages to Amanda Knox- January 24, 2019.

Azeri Woman First Target for UK Unexplained Wealth Order

By: Katherine Hewitt
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, United Kingdom – A woman charged under the UK Unexplained Wealth Order lost a court case to remain anonymous.  She and her husband are the first two being charged under the new Order.  The Order allows authorities to seize £50,00 from people suspected of corruption.

Over the past 10 years, the woman in question, Zamira Hajiyeva, spent more than £16m in Harrods, a luxury department store in London.   Examples of her spending provided in court were £15,000 at a luxury jewelry, perfume, and watch store in one day.  The next day she spent £1800 on wine.  Other purchases included £100,000 on Cartier jewelry and £20,000 on luxury men’s goods.

To pay for such items she used 3 store loyalty cards and more than 30 credit cards issued by her husband’s bank.

On top of this spending, in 2013 a company registered to her name spent more than £10m to buy a golf course and estate near Ascot. In 2009, a company purchased a large home near Harrods for £11.5m.  The home owners are Mrs. Hajiyeva and her husband.

A company owned by Mrs Hijiyeva purchased a £11.5m home in London. Photo Courtesy of Simon Dawson.

A court hearing in July of 2018 determined that Zamira Hajiyeva possessed an extensive disposable income. Under the Unexplained Wealth Order, she is required to explain the source of her wealth.  If she doesn’t, she is at risk of losing her £11.5m home.

Mrs. Hajiyeva lives in the UK under a visa policy for wealthy investors.

Her husband was the Chairman of the International Bank of Azerbaijan.  Currently, he is serving 15 years in jail for a 2016 conviction for fraud and embezzlement.  He denies the allegations, stating that he fell out of favor with the Azerbaijan’s corrupt rulers.

Mrs. Hajiyeva declares she is innocent and that her husband was a legitimate banker.  She claims her husband amassed the wealth through independent businesses he owned prior to becoming chairman.

Her lawyers released a statement in relation to her case: “The decisions of the High Court upholding the grant of an Unexplained Wealth Order against Zamira Hajiyeva does not and should not be taken to imply any wrongdoing, whether on her part or that of her husbands.”  They claim the case was a show trial and does not meet the requirements of the Order.  The National Crime Agency notes that as an official Mr. Hajiyeva would not have had the ability to amass such wealth.

Director of the National Crime Agency’s economic crime department noted, “Where we cannot determine a legitimate source for the funds used to purchase assets and prime property it is absolutely right that we ask probing questions to uncover their origin.  Unexplained Wealth Orders have the potential to significantly reduce the appeal of the UK as a destination for illicit income.” Advocates for fighting corruption are glad to see the Order being used to pursue cases of corruption.

For more information please visit:

 The Independent – Woman who spent £16m at Harrods revealed in court case – 10 October 2018

 BBC- Woman who spent £16m in Harrods revealed – 10 October 2018

 AlJazeera – Woman fights UK wealth order after spending $21m at Harrods – 10 October 2018

Reuters – Azeri banker’s high-spending wife targeted by new British anti-graft powers – 10 October 2018