n 1991, the claimant and her husband migrated from Pakistan to Germany where her husband’s application for asylum was approved, however her application was denied by the authorities. In 1994, a temporary residence permit was granted to her as a refugee’s spouse and in 1995 her son was born. In 1998 Mrs. Khan separated from her husband and in 2001 received a permanent residence permit. In 2004, she became unemployed as a result of psychological issues and in that year murdered a neighbor. The Gießen Regional Court ruled that Mrs. Khan committed manslaughter in a state of severe mental disorder and came to the conclusion that she continued to be a danger for the general public. Subsequently, a legal guardian was assigned to her and she was required to stay in a psychiatric hospital. Mrs. Khan’s expulsion was ordered by the administrative power on account of being a danger to public safety. Other reasons were that she was not well integrated in Germany, that she merely was in …show more content…
Germany case was whether the expulsion of Mrs. Khan would comprise a violation of the right to respect for her private and/or family life determined in article 8 ECHR taken into account the length of Mrs. Khan’s lawful residence in Germany, her mental state, the fact that she had not been convicted of a criminal offence and that she was not longer detained. In its assessment the court provides for an important remark by asserting that its case law does not exclude that ‘treatment which does not reach the severity of article 3 treatment may nonetheless breach article 8 in its private-life aspect, where there are sufficiently adverse effect on physical and moral integrity’. An implication of this is the possibility that a serious mental issue while not falling within the scope of article 3 ECHR still could result in a violation of article 8 ECHR which in a certain way increases the protection of a person in such
Along with this the question is raised about the morality of this new law. Many mental health professionals raise the question of whether or not they should be required to report the m...
time in detention camps. How far the principle of this case would be extended before plausible reasons would play out, I do not know." (pg. 1389).
"The Persons' Case." The Persons' Case. Global Perspectives on Personhood: Rights and Responsibilities, n.d. Web. 02 May 2014.
VonHofer, H. and R. Marvin. Imprisonment Today and Tomorrow: International perspectives. The Hague, The Neatherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2001. Print.
Ifezue G. Rajabali M., ‘Protecting the interests of the child’ [2013] Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 1: 77–85
Importantly, the crux of this question mainly lies on a critical analysis on Harris’s statement on the application margin of appreciation under Art.2. and Art. 8 of European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as ‘ECHR’). In examining Harris’s statement , it simply denotes that the application of the convention may often be varied because of the absence of consensus probably due to cultural relativism or pluralism. It has been propounded that human rights is universal , but it is inevitable for each country to adopt different practices and perception.
The circumstances in which officials granted and denied political asylum was ambiguous as shown in Xin-Chang v. Slattery and Chen Zhou Chai v. Carroll. Zhang had claimed that he had undergone sterilization as a punishment for having a second child, and therefore, was under persecution based on the family planning policy. However, judges determined that Zhang’s punishment was not for any political dissent, but was a direct consequence of his failure to comply with the one-child policy. The judges denied his motion for political asylum. However, months later, judges consulted matters regarding Chai and decided to approve his petition for political asylum. Likewise to Zhang, Chai claimed to be persecuted under the family planning policy. However, Chai had upset a powerful neighbor, which the judges found to be ground for political dissent. Yet, in Zhang’s case, he had refused multiple times to join the Communist Party, but the judges did not find this to be a form of political dissent. Without clarifying what constitutes political dissent, the decisions made have been
Van den Wyngaert, Christine. “The Political Offense Exception to Extradition: How to Plug the ‘Terrorists’ Loophole’ without Departing from Fundamental Human Rights.” International Criminal Law and Procedure. Eds. John Dugard and Christine van den Wyngaert. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1996.
Prosecutors have been slacking on the prosecution of Nazi affiliates for long enough, and it’s time for justice to be served. German laws concerning war crimes have recently taken a change for the better. According to Spiegel, a well respected international source for news world wide, stated that a prior conviction of a Nazi concentration camp guard for the murders of thousands of Jews sparked hope in the search for justice. “Demjanjuk was found guilty by a Munich court and sentenced to five years in jail for being an accessory to the murder of 28,060 Jews while he was a guard at Sobibor in occupied Poland.” According to Kurt Schrimm, a German prosecutor, “the Demjanjuk conviction represented a new interpretation of the law.” Because of Demjanjuk’s conviction, prosecutors no longer need to establish culpability in specific murders to secure a conviction. Being an accomplice to the murders that took place in the Holocaust is now enough to find Oskar Gröning guilty for the countless charges he is being charged with. Therefore, under the German legal system, Gröning is guilty for the act of supporting the Nazi regime’s efforts to extinct the Jews and conquer the European
Rowe, M., & Baranoski, M. (2000). Mental illness, criminality, and citizenship. Journal Of The American Academy Of Psychiatry And The Law, 28(3), 262-264.
On the other side of the criminal justice spectrum, there is Germany, a nation with a shaky and complex history. Until October of 1990, Germany was divided into two separate nations, West Germany and East Germany. The criminal justice system existing in modern Germany represents a combination of “Civil Law” as well as “Common Law.” The history and culture of Germany is deeply rooted into the crafting and maintenance of the German criminal justice system. In Germany, “obedience to the laws of the state, and firm discipline conforming itself with these laws, are, in Germany thought to be the most needful things in public life (Hartmann, 1911). This attitude towards obedience and discipline is seen throughout German history and is still to this
The insanity defense pertains that the issue of the concept of insanity which defines the extent to which a person accused of crimes may be alleviated of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease. “The term insanity routinely attracts widespread public attention that is far out of proportion to the defense’s impact on criminal justice” (Butler,133). The decision of this defense is solely determined by the trial judge and the jury. They determine if a criminal suffers from a mental illness. The final determination of a mental disease is solely on the jury who uses evidence and information drawn from an expert witness. The result of such a determination places the individual accused, either in a mental facility, incarcerated or released from all charges. Due to the aforementioned factors, there are many problems raised by the insanity defense. Some problems would be the actual possibility of determining mental illness, justify the placement of the judged “mentally ill” offenders and the total usefulness of such a defense. In all it is believed that the insanity defense should be an invalid defense and that it is useless and should potentially be completely abolished.
The sympathy of the government for mothers such as Khaila, trying to recover their parental rights has worn thin. Child abandonment is a serious offense and the children that suffer from such neglect face many psychological problems; if they are ever able to survive their circumstances. The abandonment and neglect of a child can result in serious criminal charges. One striking example is the case of seven month old Daniel Scott (Should We Take Away Their Kids?). Baby Daniel had been left for hours unattended and died of in a pool of his own blood. His mother, a crack addict left him in the care of his father to go on a six day crack binge. His father in turn, left him in his crib leaving the door of their Bronx tenement unlocked for any danger to afflict his unprotected son (Should We Take Away Their Kids?). The parents were later charged with manslaughter by negligence.
This case concerns the Nazis where Hitler government is ruling Germany. In 1944 a German soldier visited his wife and conveyed privately of his disapproval of Hitler. Shortly after his departure, his wife who had “turned to other men” reported his remarks to the local leader of the Nazi party to get rid of him. At that time, such remarks would had resulted death sentence. Instead of being executed, he was imprisoned for a while and later was sent to the front again. After the collapse of Nazi regime, the wife was brought to trial and her defense is that her husband’s statements constituted a crime under the Nazi laws then in force.
The core notion of the Article 8 of ECHR is the notion of “the right to private life”. At the beginning it should be examined the notion of private life and then what the right of private life consist of. The term of private life is a familial term to everyone; we are witnesses that this concept is part of our everyday life. Even though it is an important part of our life, in many cases it is most elusive.