Ministers’ Deputies
CM Documents

CM(2007)53 final 7 May 20071
——————————————

117th Session of the Committee of Ministers
(Strasbourg, 10-11 May 2007) –

Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) –
Interim report: sustained action to ensure the effectiveness of the implementation of the ECHR at national and European levels

——————————————

PART ONE

Introduction

1. Most of the work of implementing the May 2006 Declaration has been entrusted to the Steering Committee for Human rights (CDDH). The CDDH interim report is set out below in Part Two.

2. In addition to the decisions which assigned the CDDH terms of reference, it should be highlighted that, in its May 2006 Declaration, the Committee of Ministers adopted decisions in two clearly defined areas: (i) the Council of Europe cooperation programmes in the field of human rights and (ii) activities linked with the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

(i) Cooperation Programmes

3. In its Declaration, the Committee of Ministers encouraged member states to make full use of the possibility to request Council of Europe assistance to implement speedily and effectively the five recommendations mentioned in the May 2004 Declaration.2 It also invited them to take an active part in the implementation of the European Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP) to ensure full integration of Convention standards in the professional training of judges and prosecutors by the end of 2008.

4. It should be noted that in this regard member states continue to approach DGII with requests for targeted assistance in the field of professional training and capacity building. Examples include issues such as length of proceedings and improving conditions of detention in prisons. This is in addition to the numerous events carried out on the basis of the annual human rights cooperation programmes which are elaborated in cooperation with the member states. At the multilateral level, the HELP Programme (2006-2008) is developing a series of practical ECHR training tools reflecting the specific wishes put forward by the member states. The developments so far concerning the HELP Programme will be the subject of a specific interim report which will be transmitted to the Ministers’ Deputies at the end of June 2007.

(ii) Execution of judgments of the Court

5. In its Declaration, the Committee of Ministers also instructed the Ministers’ Deputies, notably to initiate annual tripartite meetings between representatives of the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Commissioner for Human Rights to promote stronger interaction with regard to the execution of judgments and to carry forward other practical proposals for the supervision of execution of the Court’s judgments, including the creation of a global database on such execution.

6. A first exchange of views between representatives of the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Commissioner for Human Rights to develop synergies in the field of execution of judgments is under consideration for the Autumn. Moreover, the publication in 2008 of the first Committee of Ministers annual report of activities on the execution of judgments concerning the year 2007 (see the decision adopted by the Deputies at their 982nd meeting) will facilitate the identification of more concrete topics for a tripartite meeting next year. In addition, since last December, a general item entitled “measures aimed at improving the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights” is on the agenda of each Committee of Ministers’ Human Rights meeting.

7. As to the database concerning the execution of judgments, the development of a part of the necessary IT tools to facilitate access to information is currently being tested and search criteria are being finalised to allow an optimal use of the information stored.

PART TWO

Introduction

1. In June 2006, following the Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on “Sustained action to ensure the effectiveness of the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at national and European levels”3 and the reports on which it was based,4 the Ministers’ Deputies assigned5 new ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) to continue work to ensure such effectiveness, by:

    - drafting a Recommendation on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of the Court’s judgments;
    - developing practical proposals for the supervision of execution of judgments in situations of slow and negligent execution;
    - following closely the Court’s developing pilot judgment practice;
    - continuing and deepening the review of the implementation of the five recommendations mentioned in the May 2004 Declaration.6

2. This report outlines progress achieved so far with regard to these four tasks as well as the envisaged next steps forward. In this regard, a time-table of meetings held and planned with a view to fulfilling the terms of reference has been included as well as a list of the main documents produced and/or used so far.7

3. As with previous similar terms of reference, the CDDH entrusted relevant work to its Committee of Experts for the Improvement of Procedures for the Protection of Human Rights (DH-PR). Work within the DH-PR was distributed as follows:

    - execution matters to a newly established Working Group A8;
    - discussions concerning pilot judgments to the DH-PR plenary;
    - continued review of the implementation of the recommendations to former Working Group B9.

1. Recommendation on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of the Court’s judgments

4. With a view to providing Group A with "food for thought", the DH-PR members were asked to send the Secretariat a short information note on the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights at the national level, placing special emphasis on:

    - how the execution process is monitored at the national level;
    - the existence or not of a Department/official with central coordinating responsibility with regard to the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights;
    - the ways and means, if any, used to accelerate execution where necessary;
    - any measures/organisational arrangements to be possibly referred to in the draft recommendation.

5. To date, 38 member states sent the requested information notes. These notes, which were compiled in a single document10, as well as avenues for reflection proposed by the Department for the Execution of Judgments11, were the starting point for in-depth discussions within Group A which resulted in the drafting of elements12 for possible inclusion in the recommendation. These elements were examined during the 2nd meeting of the Group and resulted in the adoption of a draft recommendation13.

6. This draft recommendation14 was examined by the DH-PR during its plenary in March 2007. The discussions resulted in the adoption of a revised draft submitted to the CDDH. In April 2007, the CDDH provided guidance to Group A to tie up the text.

2. Practical proposals for the supervision of execution of judgments in situations of slow and negligent execution

7. The Group has dedicated less time to this aspect of its terms of reference as it has concentrated on the preparation of the draft recommendation. It has however started to exchange views on the issue which is not new to the CDDH. Indeed, its Activity Report of April 2006 already contained practical suggestions to the Ministers’ Deputies to address situations of slow or negligent execution of judgments of the Court15. Discussions at the time had focused on the possible reasons of delays and had therefore primarily addressed their prevention. The Group is thus currently concentrating on situations when prevention has failed and execution is slow or negligent.

8. The exchanges of views held so far resulted in the identification of the following areas for further work, which are however not exhaustive:

    - identification of cases of slow or negligent execution of judgments, considering the use of a set of indicators to be further examined;
    - access to information concerning the practice and standards of the Committee of Ministers concerning supervision of execution;
    - support for collective supervision of execution by the Committee of Ministers, i.e. examination of modalities for a possible contribution of different Council of Europe actors to assist the Committee of Ministers with a view to helping member states in finding solutions to speed up the execution of judgments;
    - early identification of measures to be taken to execute the judgments of the Court;
    - optimisation of the Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meetings.

9. During the next meetings, concrete proposals in these areas will be developed taking advantage of the multilevel experiences that may be shared in the Group thanks to the productive participation of both experts of execution at the national level and experts of the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of the execution process.

3. Follow-up of the developing practice of the Court and the Ministers’ Deputies on so-called pilot judgments

10. The DH-PR held a first exchange of views with the Court Registry and the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court during its November 2006 plenary. Many useful ideas and some concrete suggestions for further in-depth analysis emerged from this exchange. The following were highlighted for future in-depth reflection at the next DH-PR plenary in September 2007:

    - need to have a clearer definition of “pilot judgments”;
    - need for a sharper characterisation of cases that lend themselves to being considered for pilot judgment procedure (possible role of the State in this regard);
    - need to reflect on the procedure of pilot judgments revealing a systemic problem (idea of prolonging time of proceedings before the Court, because of their complexity) and its effects on the execution of the case (i.e. freezing of similar cases reduces possibility of having a wider picture of the situation and hence of the measures required) and generally its impact on the State (retroactive effect: better to pay for the past or invest in the future?);
    - consider the advantages/inconveniences of a possible solid legal framework for the pilot judgment procedure;
    - need to reflect on possible guidelines for the execution of pilot judgments at the Committee of Ministers level and/or suggestion envisaging a Committee of Ministers recommendation to member states setting out the criteria for implementation at the national level of pilot judgments.

11. At this stage, the DH-PR was of the view that time was not yet ripe enough to consider developing proposals for guidelines for member states on domestic remedies following pilot judgments. It felt that the on-going developments within the Court and the Committee of Ministers’ practices had to be further examined and thus decided to keep the item on its agenda. The CDDH endorsed this approach.

4. Continued and deepened review of the implementation of the five recommendations

12. It is recalled that according to the Committee of Ministers’ request, this continued review should16:

    - fill outstanding information gaps, particularly in three priority areas: improvement of domestic remedies, re-examination or reopening of cases following judgments of the Court, and verification of compatibility of draft laws, existing laws and administrative practice with the Convention;
    - focus on verification of the effectiveness of implementation measures, and
    - obtain a better assessment of the actual impact of implementation measures on the long term effectiveness of the Convention.

13. To fill the information gaps, member states were encouraged to continue to submit any relevant up-dated information with regard to the implementation of the recommendations. Moreover, a questionnaire addressing a few key issues that remained unclear after the first phase of the review of the recommendations was prepared and sent to the DH-PR during the summer 2006. Most member states replied.

14. Preliminary analyses of these replies with regard to the three priority recommendations17 have been examined by Group B during its first three meetings. The tables18 classifying the measures adopted/actions undertaken by member states to comply with the recommendations were viewed as potentially useful tools for assessing the implementation in practice of the recommendations. In any event, it was decided that during this phase of the review, the main focus should be on the identification of good practice. It was agreed that this would enable states to improve their implementation of the recommendations.

15. To enable the CDDH not only to fill information gaps but also to focus on verification of the effectiveness of implementation measures, the envisaged widening of the review to other actors than States was started during the summer 2006. All CDDH documents relating to the review were published on the Internet19 and were also sent to the key actors whom the Ministers’ Deputies instructed the CDDH to involve in the exercise, i.e. national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and non-governmental organisations20, as well as other Council of Europe bodies21. It must be acknowledged that notwithstanding these initiatives, difficulties in assessing the real impact of national measures taken persist.

16. As to NHRIs and NGOs, these were invited to review the information provided by the State in which they are active and to share comments and views on such information, highlighting, among other things, points considered to be inaccurate or incomplete as well as any concrete suggestion for better implementation of the recommendations. To date, notwithstanding the quality of the contributions submitted22, there have been few responses to the various appeals23 made. It was reiterated that contributions from the NHRIs and NGOs to this review may lead to an improvement of the human rights situation in the State where they are active and are therefore of the utmost importance.

17. In March 2007, the DH-PR confirmed that it might be useful to encourage such contributions by organising an event on the review of the recommendations involving NHRIs, NGOs and other relevant actors. It was decided that the decision on the scope of the event and its participants should be taken at the DH-PR plenary in October 2007, when the results of the Athens Round Table24 organised by the Commissioner for Human Rights with the Ombudsmen and NHRIs, are known. In fact, it is expected that, inter alia, the work of the CDDH on the review of the recommendations will also be discussed at the round table. In April 2007, the CDDH endorsed this decision.

18. As to the involvement of other Council of Europe bodies, Group B held a first exchange of views with them to explore ways and means to maximise synergies as well as to avoid unnecessary duplication of work. To date, it has emerged that their input will essentially consist in providing:

- tools which might help States to improve the implementation of the recommendations or their assessment: e.g. the report and attached tables prepared by the Venice Commission on the effectiveness of national remedies in respect of excessive length of proceedings25; the indicators established by CEPEJ to have concrete knowledge of judicial timeframes26; the Parliamentary Assembly’s future report (Rapporteur Mrs BEMELMANS-VIDEC) on the implementation by member states of the three priority recommendations.
- co-operation in considering the impact of measures taken by States on the long-term effectiveness of the Convention: the Registry of the Court has already pointed out that experience with countries where domestic remedies have been introduced or general legislative measures have been adopted demonstrates that these have indeed produced a positive impact on the workload of the Court, notwithstanding the increase in applications lodged with the Court in 2006. Unfortunately, such an impact may not be demonstrated27 with exact figures due to deficiencies in the Court’s statistical system, improvement of which is under consideration.
- assistance in promoting the recommendations and further encouragement to implement them fully: the Commissioner for Human Rights has stressed his commitment to act to this effect during his country visits once the assessments by the CDDH are completed (April 2008)28. Moreover, the implementation of several recommendations is a part of the scope of the enhanced co-operation which he is developing with national human rights structures (ombudsmen and national human rights institutions)29. This work, which will respect the independence of these structures, will be carried out continuously.

Appendix I

Decision No. CM/867/14062006
Ad hoc terms of reference of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH)
(adopted by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 967th meeting on 14 June 2006)

1. Name of Committee: Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH)

2. Source: Committee of Ministers

3. Duration: These terms of reference shall expire on 30 April 2008. An interim report shall be submitted to the Deputies by 30 April 2007.

4. Terms of reference:

a. To draw up a draft recommendation to member states on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of the Court’s judgments, in accordance with the guidance provided in the Deputies’ report to the 116th Session of the Committee of Ministers (CM(2006)39 final).

b. To develop further practical proposals for the supervision of execution of judgments in situations of slow or negligent execution, for consideration by the Deputies in the context of their ongoing work on this issue.

c. To follow closely the developing practice of the Court and of the Ministers’ Deputies on so-called pilot judgments and, as and when appropriate, consider developing proposals for guidelines for member states on domestic remedies following such judgments.

d. To continue the review of the implementation of the five recommendations mentioned in the May 2004 Declaration, in accordance with the Declaration adopted at the 116th Session and the guidance provided in the Deputies’ report (CM(2006)39 final), with a view to obtaining a better assessment of the actual impact of implementation measures on the long-term effectiveness of the Convention.

e. To deepen this review by focusing henceforth on verification of the effectiveness of implementation measures and filling outstanding information gaps, particularly in three priority areas: improvement of domestic remedies, re-examination or reopening of cases following judgments of the Court, and verification of compatibility of draft laws, existing laws and administrative practice with the Convention.

5. Other bodies which may be involved in the work of the CDDH:

As to item a): Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly shall be invited to be associated with this work.

    As to item b): Up to 10 experts with practical experience of the Deputies’ supervision of execution of judgments, to be designated at a forthcoming Human Rights meeting, shall be associated with this work.

As to item d): Other Council of Europe bodies, such as the Parliamentary Assembly, the Court and the Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”) as well as non-governmental organisations and national human rights institutions shall be invited to be involved in the review process.

Appendix II

Timetable of meetings (held and planned)

2006

24-27 October: CDDH plenary
9-10 November: Group B
22-24 November: DH-PR plenary
14-15 December: Group A

2007

20-21 February: Group B
7-9 March: Group A
27 March: Group B
28-30 March: DH-PR plenary
10-13 April: CDDH plenary

3-5 September: Group A
6-7 September: Group B
3-5 October: DH-PR plenary
6-9 November: CDDH plenary

2008

January: Group A
February: Group B
March: DH-PR plenary
April: CDDH plenary

Appendix II

Main working documents

Meeting reports:

- Group A 1st and 2nd meetings (14-15 Dec. 2006 and 7-9 March 2007)

GT-DH-PR A(2006)004 and (2007)003

- Group B 6th and 7th meetings (9-10 Nov. 2006 and 20-21 Feb. 2007)

GT-DH-PR B(2006)008 and (2007)003

- DH-PR 60th and 61st meetings (22-24 Nov. 2006 and 28-30 March 2007)

DH-PR(2006)008 and
(2007)003

- Pilot judgments detailed discussion (during DH-PR 60th meeting)

DH-PR(2007)002

- CDDH 63rd and 64th meetings (24-27 Oct. 2006 and 10-13 April 2007)

CDDH(2006)026, §§ 7-9
and (2007)00….

1) Concerning work carried out by GROUP A

a) for the draft recommendation on effective means at domestic level for the rapid execution of the Court’s judgments

- Draft recommendation on efficient domestic capacity for rapid execution of the Court’s judgments adopted by Group A at its 2nd meeting, 7-9 March 2007

GT-DH-PR A(2007)003, Appendix III

- Elements prepared by the Secretariat for possible inclusion in the draft recommendation

GT-DH-PR A(2007)002

- Proposals for the draft recommendation submitted by some members/participants of Group A

GT-DH-PR A(2007)001 Bil

- Collection of information submitted by member states on the execution of judgments at national level

DH-PR(2006)007Bil rev

- Avenues for reflection on the effective means at domestic level for the rapid execution of the Court’s judgments: Note from the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court

GT-DH-PR A(2006)003

- Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1516(2006) and Recommendation 1764(2006) on “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights” and the Jurgens’ report, of 18 Sept. 2006, doc 11020

PACE Res 1516(2006) and Rec 1764(2006)

- Report by the Ministers’ Deputies to the 116th Session of the CM (12 May 2006)

CM(2006)39 final

b) for the development of further practical proposals for the supervision of execution of judgments in situations of slow or negligent execution

- Areas for further work identified by Group A at its 2nd meeting, 7-9 March 2007

GT-DH-PR A(2007)003, item 3, §§ 5-12

- Working methods for supervision of the execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments

CM/Inf/DH(2006)9 rev 3

- Report by the Ministers’ Deputies to the 116th Session of the CM

CM(2006)39 final

- Practical suggestions from the CDDH to the Ministers’ Deputies to address situations of slow or negligent execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

CDDH(2006)008,
Appendix IV

- Responses in the event of slow or negligent execution or non-execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: Information document prepared by Directorate General II – Human Rights

CM(2003)37 rev 6

2) Concerning work on the developing practice of the Court and of the Ministers’ Deputies on PILOT JUDGMENTS

    - Information note prepared by the Registry of the Court

    3) Concerning work carried out by GROUP B

a) With regard to all recommendations

- Replies to the new questionnaire received by the Secretariat

DH-PR(2006)004 rev Bil

- Comments/supplementary information received by the Secretariat
- Background paper: Effective Protection of Human Rights in Europe: Enhanced Co-operation between Ombudsmen, National Human Rights Institutions and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

DH-PR(2006)005Bil
CommDH/Omb-NHRI(2007)1 Rev 1

- Information note on contributions expected from other Council of Europe bodies

DH-PR(2006)006

- Questionnaire on the implementation of the five recommendations follow-up (27 July 2006)

DH-PR(2006)002

- Report by the Ministers’ Deputies to the 116th Session of the CM (12 May 2006)

CM(2006)39 final

- CDDH Activity report (7 April 2006)

CDDH(2006)008
+ Addenda I - III

b) With specific regard to Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on improvement of domestic remedies

    - Preliminary analysis of replies concerning Rec(2004)6

GT-DH-PR(2007)001 Bil

    - Study 316/2004 on the effectiveness of national measures in respect of excessive length of proceedings (22 Dec. 2006)

CDL-AD(2006)036

    - Replies to the Questionnaire on excessive length of proceedings (15 Feb. 2007)

CDL(2006)026

    - Report on length of court proceedings in the member states of the Council of Europe based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (8 Dec. 2006)

CEPEJ(2006)15

c) With specific regard to Recommendation Rec(2004)5 on verification of compatibility

- Preliminary analysis of replies concerning Rec(2004)5

GT-DH-PR(2007)002 Bil

d) With specific regard to Recommendation Rec(2000)2

- Preliminary analysis of replies concerning Rec(2000)2

GT-DH-PR(2007)004 Bil

- Suggested revision of the summary table concerning Rec(2000)2

    (document prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court)

GT-DH-PR B(2006)007

Note 1 This document has been classified restricted at the date of issue. It was declassified at the 117th Session of the Committee of Ministers (10-11 May 2007).

2 Recommendation Rec(2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2002)13 on the publication and dissemination in the member states of the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2004)4 on the European Convention on Human Rights in university education and professional training; Recommendation Rec(2004)5 on the verification of the compatibility of draft laws, existing laws and administrative practice with the standards laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies.

Note 3 Declaration adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 May 2006 at its 116th Session (see document Dec-19.05.2006E).
Note 4 Reports by the CDDH and the Ministers’ Deputies related to the implementation of the reform measures adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 114th Session in May 2004 (see document CM(2006)39 and its Addendum).
Note 5 See Decision No. CM/867/14062006, adopted on 14 June 2006, reproduced in Appendix I to this report for ease of reference.
Note 6 “Ensuring the effectiveness of the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at national and European levels”, Declaration adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 May 2004 at its 114th Session.
Note 7 See respectively, Appendices II and III to this report.

8 Working Group A is composed of experts from Czech Republic, Finland, France (Chair), Italy, Latvia, Romania, the Russian Federation (Vice-Chair), Serbia and Spain. In addition experts from Belgium, Georgia, the Netherlands and Sweden also participated in all or some of the meetings so far. Moreover, as established by the terms of reference, this Group benefits from the participation of the following nine experts of supervision of the execution of judgments, appointed by the Ministers’ Deputies on 25 October 2006 at their 978th meeting: Ms Suela Meneri (Albania), Ms Annette Weerth (Germany), Mr Ronan Gargan (Ireland), Mr Francesco Crisafulli (Italy), Ms Ragna Fidjestol (Norway), Mr Jakub Woląsiewicz (Poland), Mr Mǻns Molander (Sweden), Ms Deniz Akçay (Turkey) and Ms Helen Mulvein (United Kingdom).

Note 9 Working Group B is composed of experts from Cyprus, the Czech Republic (Chair), France, Germany, Latvia (Vice-Chair), Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Note 10 See document DH-PR(2006)007 rev Bil.
Note 11 See document GT-DH-PR A(2006)003.
Note 12 See document GT-DH-PR A(2007)002.
Note 13 See Appendix III, document GT-DH-PR A(2007)003.
Note 14 See Appendix III, document DH-PR(2007) 003.
Note 15 See Appendix IV, document CDDH(2006)008. The state of play with regard to the implementation of two of the practical proposals contained in this Appendix, i.e. the execution database and the vademecum on the execution process, was regularly presented to the DH-PR by the Department for the Execution of Judgments.
Note 16 See letter X, e-g of the Declaration on sustained action to ensure the effectiveness of the implementation of the ECHR at national and European level (adopted on by the Committee of Ministers on 19 May 2006 at its 116th Session).
Note 17 Recommendation Rec(2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; Recommendation Rec(2004)5 on the verification of the compatibility of draft laws, existing laws and administrative practice with the standards laid down in the ECHR and Recommendation Rec(2004)6 on the improvement of domestic remedies. As to the remaining recommendations (Recommendation Rec(2002)13 on the publication and dissemination in the member states of the text of the ECHR and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and Recommendation Rec(2004)4 on the ECHR in university education and professional training), it was agreed that conclusions from the replies to the new questionnaire would be drawn in due time before the end of the terms of reference.
Note 18 See document GT-DH-PR B(2007)001 (pp. 13-18) and 002 (pp. 12-18).
Note 19 See http://www.coe.int/t/F/Droits_de_l%27Homme/ECHRReform_followup.asp#TopOfPage.
Note 20 Members of the DH-PR were invited to send to the Secretariat the contact details of any relevant national actor.
Note 21 Specific reference was made to: the Parliamentary Assembly, the Court and the Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) and the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”).
Note 22 To date, a total of 10 contributions were received from: Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia; Danish Institute for Human Rights; Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme (France); Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; Albanian Helsinki Committee; Kurdish Human Rights project; Legal Education Society (Azerbaijan); Czech Bar association; Unione Forense per la Tutela dei Diritti dell’ Uomo (Italy); Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights. See document DH-PR(2006)005rev which is available on Internet at the webpage indicated above.
Note 23 The Secretariat sent a request by email during the summer 2006 (which is reproduced in the introduction of document DH-PR(2006)005Bil.) and the Chairperson of the DH-PR addressed a letter requesting comments by civil society in November 2006 (see Appendix III, DH-PR 60th meeting report, document DH-PR(2006)008). The requests were addressed to approximately 170 relevant actors.
Note 24 The Round table, which will take place on 12 and 13 April 2007 (during the next CDDH plenary meeting), will deal with the theme of on the strengthening of cooperation to support the long-term effectiveness of the European Convention's control mechanism.
Note 25 All documents related to this report (Study 316/2004 22 Dec. 2006, document CDL-AD(2006)036) are available at http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2006/CDL(2006)026-e.asp.
Note 26 See www.coe.int/CEPEJ.
Note 27 See the 7th meeting report of Group B for concrete examples (para 20, document GT-DH-PR B(2007)003).
Note 28 For more details, see Appendix IV of the 7th meeting report of Group B, document GT-DH-PR B(2007)003.
Note 29 See Background paper: Effective Protection of Human Rights in Europe: Enhanced Co-operation between Ombudsmen, National Human Rights Institutions and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (document CommDH/Omb-NHRI(2007)1 Rev 1).


 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents