Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Visit Ovi bookshop - Free eBooks  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Stop human trafficking
Ovi Language
Murray Hunter: Essential Oils: Art, Agriculture, Science, Industry and Entrepreneurship
The Breast Cancer Site
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Protection of Human Rights at International Organizations - Only a Fiction Protection of Human Rights at International Organizations - Only a Fiction
by Frantisek Brychta
2007-10-02 00:26:40
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

My article entitled “Protection of Human Rights at International Organizations – only a Fiction” relates to the issue of the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms and difficulties connected with their enforcement.

2 Description of the facts

2.1 Proceedings before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic

In 1996 I turned to the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic with the aim to protect my rights. My constitutional complaint was submitted against discriminating judgement of the Regional Court Brno File No. 12Co 452/91. Within a fair trial the Constitutional Court can deliver its decision only in relation to the subject of the complaint. This duty has been set to the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic even by the Constitution of the Czech Republic.

In my case the Constitutional Court has taken its decision on the judgement of the Regional Court Brno File No. 12Co 17/93 which has not been the subject of my constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has not reviewed the judgement of the Regional Court Brno File No. 12Co 452/91 which was the subject of my constitutional complaint. Thus the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has violated my right to a fair trial. My right to a fair trial has been guaranteed not only by the Constitution of the Czech Republic but even by international conventions by which the Czech Republic was and still has been bound.

The fact that the Constitutional Court has taken its decision on different judgement than that one which has been the subject of my complaint is entirely without any doubts an obvious violation of my rights. Everybody, even a person without education in law, has to come to this conclusion.

By the delivery of this illegal decision of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic I have lost any possibility to enforce my right in the Czech Republic. That is to say in the Czech Republic there is no legal instrument of remedy against a decision of the Constitutional Court, not even in case of such obvious violation of complainant's rights.

2.2 Procedure before the European Court of Human Rights

With regard to above shown reason I was forced to turn to foreign institutions. Primarily I turned within set term to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The complaint was registered under File No. PI 3241; after that, since 16 December 1996, under No. 34185/96. The subject of my complaint was violation of my right on the part of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. I rightfully think that the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic has obviously violated my right to a fair trial in consequence of the fact that it has not decided on my constitutional complaint.

In 1997 I received a preliminary consideration of my complaint. The European Court of Human Rights has not been evidently concerned with the content of my complaint – the European Court has not been concerned with the violation of my right to a fair trial by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. In 1998 I received a decision about inadmissibility of my complaint No. 34185/96. However, I categorically refuse such a conclusion because the complaint of the procedure of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic was submitted duly and in time.

Besides my written correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights, among others also with the connection with other complaints, prove very bad registration and record-keeping of the complaints (applications) at this Court. As examples can be shown following:

  • In the letter of 16 December 1996 I am informed that my complaint No. 34185/96 is considered to be submitted on 03 April 1996. That is entirely inconsistent with the documentation and information that I delivered to the European Court. Further more the complaint to the European Court was submitted against the Court ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic File No. I. US 200/95 which was delivered on 25 April 1996. According to the European Court it is possible to lodge a complaint against a court ruling which has not been delivered yet – what nonsense.
  • In the letter of 26 March 2004 I am even informed that my complaint shall have been submitted already in 1995. I repeat that the decision of the Constitutional Court was taken on 25 April 1996. That is why I could not lodge a complaint against the decision of the Constitutional Court before 25 April 1996.
  • The European Court has not decided on my other complaints against the Czech Republic yet (e. g. complaints against the judgements of the Courts of the Czech Republic that are based on non-existing wording of the acts).
  • In 2004 the European Court sent me a list of my complaints that are registered at the European Court. Some of my submitted complaints are not given here, on the contrary there are given some complaints that I have never submitted. This fact proves unbelievable mistakes and absence of any interest in the contents of sent documents.
  • Also many other citizens of the Czech Republic have bad experience with the European Court of Human Rights. In the Internet there are published complaints of the citizens of the Czech Republic on account of bad registration and record-keeping of their complaints (applications) at the European Court. Some of the citizens of the Czech Republic went personally to Strasbourg when they received letters from the European Court in which they were only informed that their complaints have been already decided. The citizens, however, did not receive any due Court ruling or Decision of the European Court. They went to Strasbourg to inspect their files at the European Court. On the place itself they have found out that the European Court has not been decided on their complaints at all. Their complaints simply ended straight in the archives of the Court. Besides they found out that there are no records about content of the file; files of each complaint have been kept in the form of “boot-box” – free sheets placed in a folder without any evidence.

With regard to the fact that my applications for remedy were not met by the European Court, I turned with above shown matter to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2006.

2.3 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

I submitted my Petition to the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights in September 2006. The Petition is dated 20 September 2006. I submitted my petition in harmony with a standard petition (given on the official web pages of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). In my petition there is described in detail the procedure which proceeded to the submission of my petition. A part of the petition specified, among others, the claims which I had made, when and with what results. Everything was duly documented by documentary proofs.

The Petition of 20 September 2006 with its 28 Enclosures was returned to me by the Petitions Unit to my address. In the envelope all documents which I sent were sent back to me. In this letter from the Petitions Unit I was informed that my Petitions did not meet requirements for its submission.

I cannot agree with such a conclusion, as well as everybody who would be duly acquainted with the content of my complaint.

In relation to above shown it is necessary to point out to many discrepancies. In the envelope in which my Petition and all related documents were sent back to me there was a letter from the Petitions Unit dated 13 October 2005 – I did not make a mistake, the letter was dated 13 October 2005. My Petition is specified in the letter from the Petitions Unit as Petition of 28 September 2005 (I repeat that the date given on my Petition is 20 September 2006).

The Petitions Unit has not met my application of 20 November 2006 yet. In this application I ask them for giving of concrete facts for which my Petitions was not accepted and was passed back to me. In this application I ask them also for specification of the page and relevant provision of the Petition for which my Petition was not accepted. Almost one year has elapsed from sending of this application.

In next letter of 18 January 2007 the Petitions Unit has informed me that it registers my petition of 20 November 2006. However, I have never submitted any Petition dated 20 November 2006. That is why I asked the Petitions Unit for sending of a copy of this alleged petition in my Application of 26 January 2007. I have not received the demanded copy of this Petition from the Petitions Unit yet.

2.4 Application addressed to Mrs. Arbour – High Commissioner of the UNO

Written documents that I have received from the Petitions Unit prove bad record-keeping of my Petition of 20 September 2006 at the Petitions Unit. That is why I turned to Mrs. Arbour – a High Commissioner of the United Nations Organization with a written application for remedy. Mrs. Arbour has not responded to my application of 04 June 2007 yet.

2.5 Other organizations for the protection of human rights

I turned with above shown matter to other organizations that are concerned with the protection of human rights. Some of them have not answered me at all. The answers which I received from the rest of the organizations are, sorry to say, only formal. I have become convinced that also these organizations bring nothing to the citizens of the Czech Republic, nor have been helpful at the protection of their rights. Further details are given in the Enclosures of my e-mail of 27 August 2007.

3 Conclusion

Since 1996, when the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic obviously violated my rights, I have not claimed my rights yet. The title of the article “Protection of Human Rights at International Organizations – only a Fiction” has been based on my bad experience with these organizations.

*********************************************************************

Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV -


    
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(2)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-02 14:52:25
Of course, a thorough assessment of the claim of unresponsiveness on the part of national and international institutions to violations of human rights requires a close look at exactly what those violated rights are. The above complaint hardly specifies what they are; it merely makes a claim. But even if we assume that in fact Mr. Brychta's claim is legitimate, one can hardly be surprised at the outcome. For, if a polity sets itself up with a constitution which grounds human rights in the power of the state, or hyper-state as the case may be, rather than in a transcendent Being (as some 90% of the world’s constitutions do), then logically those rights become ipso facto precarious; that is so because they are no longer inalienable: they are granted, nobles oblige, by the state, and they can be violated by the same state at any time it so decides. for it own “superior” motives. Unfortunately, institutions too, even democratic ones, like individuals are prone to the temptation of secret agendas. When idolatry, the worship of one’s own cleverness and spurious ideologies becomes the transcendent law of the land, then nobody’s human rights are safe and guaranteed, even when spelled out in a constitution. The so called People’s Republic of China too has a constitution which guarantees those rights to its citizens, on paper!


CR Sinclair2013-03-20 12:48:40
What are your complaints, Frantisek? Or, being 80 - you don't remember?


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi