Multiple Governments and Intergovernmental Relationships Essay

Multiple Governments and Intergovernmental Relationships - Essay Example US system of government has become more and more federal as time has gone by. As federalism increases the nature of co-operation also changes between the different forms of government. A local government which depends on the provincial government for its existence would certainly be less demanding and more co-operative as compared to a local government which has been given constitutional status. In US federal governments have a right to make laws in variety of spheres. The congress can pass only certain laws related to certain fields specified in the constitution. However experts believe that this autonomy or freedom is mainly on paper than in practice. As federal government control the purse strings they have the power to convince local governments to follow model bills prepared by the congress. In some areas these powers are beneficial but may also be prove contrary to local benefits in some cases. This is probably the most important aspect of intergovernmental relations as a government interacts through their bureaucrats. At a particular point of time FBI is represented by the agent who is interacting with the LAPD.These officers can cause conflicts between two governments and can also make them very reactive to each other depending upon their personal rapport or enmity. One of the most important examples in the recent times of intergovernmental relation has been anti-terrorist inquiries. Some of these inquiries are carried out parallel by the both the FBI as well as state police. In major terrorist attack cases even the homeland security may be involved. Local police officers do not like any case which happens even their area to be transferred to the FBI. They see this as a personal insult. This lead to enmity between the forces and lead to an atmosphere of mistrust. It has been documented by various investigators that prior information about a 9/11 plot was

What are Human Rights Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

What are Human Rights - Assignment Example All these documents led to the creation of all modern day human rights documents. Many of them have been converted to modern-day policies and human rights documents in varied segments of social, religious, economic and political sections (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2010). However, the impending issue to date is the problem of deprivation. These legal documents are meant to help the oppressed across different sections of the society to resort to means of emancipation. Despite its long history, the field of Human Rights needs to effectively perform to improve human lives. Human Rights were born after the World War II, with the formation of the United Nations (OHCHR, 2015). This led to focus on the individual consciousness as a part of inherent ability to be purportedly universal or self-evident in existence, international legalization and endowments. One of its most important expressions relevant in the present century is the debate and success of human rights as a legal prima for legitimate involvement and ensuring that everyone’s rights are protected (Twiss, 2004). The generation-wise classification was introduced in Karel Vasak in the year 1977. The civil-political (First-generation) human rights pertain to norms related to physical and civil security and civil-political liberties or empowerments (for example, laws relating to slavery, freedom of thought, religion etc). The second category relates to the socio-economic (Second-generation) human rights that again include two subtypes, such as, norms related to the provision of goods for meeting social needs and those  pertaining to meeting the economic needs (for example, laws relating to nutrition, shelter, health-care).  The (Third Generation) collective-developmental human rights include two subtypes, i.e., self-determination of peoples for securing economic, social, and cultural development and some other special rights of ethnic and religious minorities that entitles them to freely practice their own cultures, language, and religion.

Corporate Social Responsibility for Multi-national Organizations Essay

Corporate Social Responsibility for Multi-national Organizations - Essay Example Companies like GE, BP, Starbucks, Dell, Pfizer, and Apple are loved and hated by many people for many different reasons (Colvin, 2006). However, none of these companies can afford their brand name and image to be tarnished in any way. Undoubtedly, we are living in the information age and even rumors about a company’s suppliers maltreating employees in China, or the company’s employees facing racial as well as gender based discrimination can have real effects on the bottom line of the company. Even though it is possible for a company to be appreciated based on its financial performance alone (Forbes, 2005), greater appreciation comes with social responsibility along with financial performance (Natural Health, 2005). The combination of these two forces means that a company has to be extremely careful in maintaining its image as well as its profits. Social responsibility is not merely an idea for exceeding the ethical responsibility of a company; it is the chance to seek out an image that has remained exclusively in the domain of NGOs and social organizations i.e. being a ‘green’ company. While this implies being environmentally friendly, the environment includes a lot more than making sure that the smokestacks of the industry do not create more than an acceptable level of pollution. In the context of social responsibility, the environment also includes the business environment of the company including who supplies material to the firm and who buys its products. Strangely enough, GE has been rated as the most admired company in America (Fisher, 2006) as well as the world (Demos, 2006) yet it has only published two corporate responsibility reports in all its existence. The first one was published in 2005 and the second one was published this year (GE, 2006). Considering that several other companies have been publishing such reports since 1995,

Type a summary for each of the 4 readings that are assigned this wk Article

Type a summary for each of the 4 readings that are assigned this wk - Article Example Furthermore, Kelly (2008) noted the importance of epistemology and methodology in determining a Deaf standpoint. She stressed that Deaf Studies has to answer questions regarding epistemology and methodology before proceeding to determining a Deaf standpoint. Moreover, Kelly (2008) argued that Deaf women are marginalized because they are rarely found in history books, an absence that disables them from learning more about their gender and Deaf identities. As a teacher of Deaf Women’s Studies, she noticed the glaring absence of books on and by Deaf women. She stressed that few books are by, for, and done with Deaf women. Kelly (2008) concluded that Deaf women scholars should encourage Deaf women to share their writings and other works with them and the public in order to encourage interest in and research on Deaf women. Holcomb (2013) explored how the Deaf community embraces diversity using two perspectives in â€Å"Chapter 13: Diversity in the Deaf Community.† One perspective asserts that the Deaf community embraces differences, while the second believes that due to limited access to multicultural resources, the Deaf community is as conservative as mainstream non-Deaf society and that Deaf people also show discrimination against minority groups within it. He stressed that the Deaf community exhibits both these types of communities. In addition, Holcomb (2013) described that the Deaf community is actually composed of Deaf communities because it represents diverse Deaf groups, such as the hard-of-hearing Deaf, Deaf people from the mainstream, the elite Deaf, the grassroots Deaf, and the regional Deaf. He further explored how diversity in the Deaf community results to division within it. Furthermore, Holcomb (2013) identified Deaf individuals of color with notable accomplishments in different fields. He also stressed the challenges of Deaf people in accessing programs that have holistic components to development and the issues involved in dealing

Thrilling horror Essay Example for Free

Thrilling horror Essay Frankenstein, with its fascinating literature and its thrilling horror has been split into two categories: good and evil. The whole book is a contrast of good and evil, something I believe Shelly has deliberately put into her book to make the reader begin to judge the characters and to show everyone that no living thing is pure evil and that no living thing is perfect either. Also, it shows how people are affected by nature and outside influences. As I read this thrilling book of terror and fright I began to wonder, what is a monster? Is it because of their grotesque appearance? If so, should we shun away from the disabled and ugly are they born wicked? Or do they have wickedness thrust down upon them? These are some of the types of questions that Mary Shelleys novel throws up. Nature vs. Nurture is a major theme in the novel and questions beliefs of the time. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (a natural philosopher during the time when Shelley wrote her book) argues that all things newly born into the world are born innocent. He believed that every man is born pure; it is the cruelty of man that makes them evil. This is related in Shelleys book, Frankenstein. It was a highly debated idea at the time. In Frankenstein, an example of this idea was that Victor was born innocent. This is shown when it says: I (Frankenstein) their (his parents) play toy, I was their idol and something better- their child, the innocent and helpless creature bestowed on them by heaven (Chapter I page 33). The words play toy and helpless creature are a parallel with the creature that Frankenstein creates as Shelley is trying to show you the verity of the monsters upbringing compared to Victors, as the monster also calls himself helpless and alone. This shows that although Victor and his creature are main contrasts with each other, they are bound to each other and most of their lives mirror each other as both were born innocent and helpless. For example, Victor was treated like a play toy which then plays a part in Victors Social development (him thinking that he can become god by creating life and the creature being his play toy) and thats what he then created. He created his child to be a play toy what goes around comes around Whilst reading this book the creature also gives an account where he is describing himself to the cottagers saying: up to this point my life has been withered to harmless . The word withered simulates the imagery of the monster being a fragile living being, instead of a monster which has been left to rot without sunshine. In this case the sunshine would represent a loving parent. The plant (THE MONSTER) without a loving parent would rot and die. This is a contrast and parallel between Frankenstein and the monster. The monster is shunned away, even from his birth, as he was left to wander the world without any loving parents or any one to guide him. This reflects Frankensteins own selfishness to abandon his son/ creation. This also could relate to the nature Vs nurture theory as the monster was created through science and is turned away by man and Frankenstein. The creature spends several months of his life in a squalid hovel. Shelley uses the words squalid hovel to describe the transformation from the city houses to where the monsters life began to where his life has led him. The setting reflects his own life as the people inside the cottage were born naturally and are living in a nice secure environment whereas he was born unnaturally so he must spend his life alone and in a squalid hovel. When the monster gazes at himself he is disgusted with himself. With him referring to himself as having a miserable deformity. This goes a lot deeper when the monster is shunned away from the cottagers. He becomes angry and vengeful, so from that moment I [the monster] ,declared everlasting war against the species, and more than all, against [Frankenstein] who had formed [him] and sent [him] forth to this insupportable misery. (Chapter 16, pg. 121) Shelley is giving the reader a message that the way people are treated would effect them later in their lives and the way they were brought up could effect the rest of humanity. During the time he observes the cottagers, a new character is introduced. This is deliberately done for effect to parallel the monsters lack of knowledge, as she is taught lessons in English by Felix De Lacey. Safie is an outsider (Shelley makes it seem as if she is an immigrant or alien) and there is a similarity with the monster, both are exiles, not accepted and needing to learn a new language to be accepted.

Great Expectations Essay Example for Free

Great Expectations Essay Great Expectations, a novel by Charles Dickens, was first published in England as a serial in the years 1860 and 61 then later as a novel. It runs to 448 pages in modern paperback. The work is considered to be autobiographical and told in first person as a memoir of the orphan boy, Pip. Dickens’ thesis is moral in nature, saying that love, loyalty and a clean conscience are more important than wealth, social class and ambition. Pip believes he is in love with the Estella, a ward of the rich Mrs. Havisham and seeks to become a gentleman in order to win her heart. He comes to realize his sister and her husband and the convicted criminal, Magwitch, though low in social class, display more character than those he knows of the upper class. Dickens, through his protagonist, advances the idea that nobility is not noble by nature, and one can advance on his own intelligence and work ethic (183). Mrs. Havisham’s family earned their money in commerce but she still represents wealth. Dickens depicts her as a bitter and vengeful old woman, full of hatred for men. She uses Pip and encourages the like-minded Estella to break his heart (60). Pip comes into money and believes that the upper class Mrs. Havisham is his benefactress, which is not true. His money comes from the convict Magwitch who wants to make Pip a gentleman for his own reasons (335). Bentley Drummle, while a minor character, is used by Dickens to show that nobility does not confer morality on a person. Dickens proves his thesis by the relating the callous behavior of the upper classes, compared and contrasted to the kindness of his poor family and the lower classes represented. He produces a litany of noble scoundrels and lowborn citizens with high moral fiber for the reader to consider.

Judicial Review problem question essay

Judicial Review problem question essay Judicial Review problem question (3000 words) Part 1 The first significant area for consideration in this scenario is whether Jack will be granted permission to proceed with his application for judicial review. He is seeking review of a decision by an internal disciplinary tribunal that he be dismissed for unprofessional conduct. The tribunal found unanimously in favour of dismissing Jack. In order to assess whether Jack will be permitted to pursue his claim for review, the nature of jusidical review must briefly be considered. Following the Bowman Report of 2000, in the light of Lord Woolfe’s recommendations for law reform, the regime of judicial review has been altered in certain ways. The 1977 reforms of the procedure did not state expressly that judicial review was an exclusive procedure.[1] It was in the case of O’reilly v Mackman (1983) that the court considered the issue of exclusivity. In this case, the House of Lords held that it would be contrary to public policy to allow an applicant to seek to enforce public l aw rights by way of ordinary action rather than by way of judicial review. In the present instance, then, it must be considered whether the decision of the tribunal is a public or a private law matter. The ruling of the House of Lords in this case means that procedural exclusivity exists in cases of public law. In order to assess whether Jack’s case is one of public law, the common law must be considered in this area. In Cocks v Thanet District Council (1983), the House of Lords held that under the relevant Act in the case, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, the housing authorities’ functions were essentially public law functions. These functions included deciding whether they had a duty to house the applicant under the 1977 Act. It was only after this decision had been made, and if it was considered that such a duty did exist, that private rights and obligations would arise. In Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee (1992), the House of Lords held that an issue was concerned exclusively with a public right should be determined in judicial review proceedings. This strict application of the exclusivity principle, however, has been superceded by the more liberal approach characterised in the decision of Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside (2000). In his judgement, Lord Woolfe explained the effects of the new Civil Procedure Rules on the rule in O’reilly v Mackman. â€Å"The intention of the CPR is to harmonise procedures as far as possible and to avoid barren procedural disputes which generate satellite litigation.†[2] The important question has become whether failure to follow the correct procedure amounts to abuse of process of court. In the present case, then, the question of whether this matter is properly described as public law or private law is of the utmost significance. As long as Jack can satisfy the court that the functions of the tribunal are public law ones, he will most likely be granted permission to proceed with his claim. This, however, may be difficult. In R v Legal Aid Board, ex p Donn Co (1996), Ognall J stated that ‘there can be no universal test’ for deciding whether a matter is properly described as public law. If the tribunal is a public body, it will have derived its authority from statute or delegated legislation (as opposed to deriving powers from the agreement of those who are subject to the body). Some guidance as to what would constitute a public body was offered by the Court of Appeal in R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan (1993). Here it was held that although the Jockey Club regulated a significant national activity, it did not properly constitu te a public body, as it was not mentioned in statute, and its powers were simply over those who agreed to be bound by it. In Jack’s case, however, the tribunal does indeed derive its powers from statute. Furthermore, following R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc (1987), the court should look to the nature of the functions the body performs, as well as its origins. The functions of the tribunal will be considered to be public law functions, and so in the light of the doctrine of exclusivity, Jack will be granted permission to proceed with his claim for judicial review. Part 2 There are various grounds that may arise for Jack to pursue his claim for judicial review in the scenario. Firstly, Jack is told by the tribunal that he may not have legal representation present. Furthermore, although he is entitled to have a friend or relative present at the proceedings, this person must not be legally qualified. Is this a breach of protocol? In other words, does Jack have a right to be represented at the Tribunal? It is established at common law that no such right exists. In the case of R v Board of Visitors of HM Prison, the Maze, ex p Hone, the appellants claimed that the Board’s refusal to allow them to be legally represented at the disciplinary proceedings was counter to natural justice. Lord Goff, however, said â€Å"it does not follow that simply because a charge before a disciplinary tribunal †¦ relates to facts which in law constitute a crime, the rules of natural justice require the tribunal to grant legal representation.’ According to this analysis, then, Jack does not necessarily have a right to legal representation. Whether legal representation is granted is a matter, in this instance, for the tribunal to decide. In doing so, it must take into account a number of factors. These include whether there are complex matters of law at issue (which it does not appear there are in this case); and whether Jack is incapable of presenting his own case. If fairness dictated that Jack should be allowed representation for either of these reasons, then of course he should be, but the tribunal appears to have acted within its rights to deny him this representation in the present instance. Lord Denning highlighted this principle in Pett v Greyhound Racing Association (1969): ‘It is not every man who has the ability to defend himself on his own †¦ He may be tongue-tied or nervous, confused or wanting in intelligence.† Jack’s tribunal could make a case for denying Jack representation, and this is not there fore a suitable ground for his claim for judicial review. The second issue relates to the tribunal’s decision to limit Jack’s witnesses to five, as opposed to the ten he originally sought to act as character witnesses. There are two possible avenues which Jack could proceed down with this. The decision can be identified as falling within, perhaps, one of the original categories of grounds for judicial review as set out by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). This ground was irrationality, which was likened in that case to the principle of unreasonableness identified in the other key case for judicial review, Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948). This principle of irrationality applied, in Lord Diplock’s words, to ‘a decision which I so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who has applied his mind to the question to be decided would have arrived at it.’[3] This was ada pted and mollified somewhat by Lord Cooke in R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Trader’s Ferry Ltd (1999), who asked ‘whether the decision in question was one which a reasonable authority would reach.’ The problem of proceeding down this avenue, for Jack, is the high standard of proof which Jack must meet in order to be successful in his claim. He would need to show that the decision to limit his witnesses to five would not be reached by any reasonable person. Lord Ackner identified the reason for this high level of proof as being that judicial review is a supervisory process, not an appellate jurisdiction (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind (1991)). It seems unlikely that Jack would succeed in establishing that this decision on the part of the tribunal was so irrational as to be worthy of judicial review. He would more likely be successful following the second potential avenue in relation to this decision of the tribunal; that of procedural impropriety, which was also one of the original grounds for judicial review identified in the GCHQ Case. This phrase encompasses both the breach of statutorily defined procedural rules, and also the breach of common law rules of natural justice. Jack’s claim in this area will depend in part on the procedural rules set out in the relevant statute governing employment tribunals. If the tribunal has not complied with statutory provisions by limiting Jack’s witnesses to five, it will be considered to have acted ultra vires. In this case, the tribunal has met with its statutory obligation under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, s10 to give reasons for its decision to limit the number of witnesses to five for each side (‘it would not be administratively expedient to allow the calling of such a large number of witnesses, particular ly as it is the view of the tribunal that many of the witnesses would not provide evidence which would have a material impact upon the outcome of the proceedings’). It is a central principle of natural justice that Jack must be entitled to a fair hearing. It is in this area that Jack has the best chance of securing judicial review of the employment tribunal’s decision. Firstly, in relation to the composition of the panel, Jack has a valid complaint against the inclusion of a member of staff with whom he had a relationship that ended acrimoniously. This instantly raises the possibility of bias in the tribunal panel. English courts have developed two tests for bias, based on reasonable suspicion, and on real likelihood. In R v Gough (1993), however, it was held that the same test should be applicable in all cases of apparent bias. This test is whether there is a real danger of bias. Given the nature of the woman’s previous relationship to Jack, it is fair to suggest that there is a real danger of bias. This, then, according to the Gough test (despite subsequent challenges to that test in cases such as Porter v Magill (2002)), would g ive Jack a strong ground for seeking judicial review. Part 3 The grounds under which Jack might be able to pursue his claim for judicial review have been considered. Purely on the grounds for judicial review, Jack’s best chance of success lies with the danger of bias in the composition of the panel in the tribunal, given that one of his ex-girlfriends is a member of it. Jack might well, however, be able to strengthen his claim by supporting it with Human Rights Act claims. The impact of this will be considered on each of the possible grounds for review outlined above. Firstly, in respect of the decision by the tribunal not to allow Jack to be legally represented, it is possible that although this is not necessarily improper in itself, it may be a breach of Jack’s human rights as encompassed in the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The relevant article of the Convention is Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. This entitles Jack, ‘in the determination of his civil rights and obligations †¦ to a fair and public hearing.’[4] Firstly, does this cover tribunals of the sort Jack is involved in? In the case of Ringeisen v Austria (1971), the European Court held that Article 6(1) covers all proceedings whose result affects private rights and obligations. In the present instance, Jack’s right to continue working as a teacher is to be determined by the outcome of the tribunal. It seems then, that his case is at least covered by the Article. The Article only confirms that Jack would have a right to legal representation, however, if he were charged with a criminal offence. ‘Everyone charged with a criminal has the following minimal rights †¦ to defend himself in person or through legal assistance †¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢[5] This, however, is merely a civil offence, so once again, there is no guarantee that Jack should be granted legal representation under the ECHR. The same Article of the Convention is also applicable, however, to the composition of the tribunal panel as well as the manner in which the tribunal was conducted. Firstly, the Article guarantees the right to a ‘fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢[6] In the European Court case of Langborger v Sweden (1989), the Court established that ‘even if individuals are technically qualified to address a given issue and even if there is no subjective reason to doubt their personal integrity, it is important that the appearance of objective impartiality and independence is observed.’[7] More specifically, in the case of Sramek v Austria (1984), those adjudicating a particular matter cannot be seen to have a relationship with any of the parties. This case law clearly impacts upon Jack’s case, as the previous relationship he had with the female member of the panel can be seen to breach this principle of f airness and impartiality, despite her assurances that the history had no effect on her judgment. Furthermore, also under Article 6(1), the court or tribunal is required to give reasons for its decisions. Jack’s employment tribunal met this requirement insofar as it gave reasons for its refusal to allow Jack more than five witnesses, but it must also have given reasons for its unanimous decision to dismiss Jack. Perhaps linked to this is Jack’s right under the same Article to a ‘fair hearing’. The fact that Jack noticed one of the panel was falling asleep during his defence hardly seems commensurate with this principle. He could conceivably, then, mount a challenge to the decision of the tribunal based on human rights claims under Article 6 of the ECHR. He would have two substantial avenues of challenge; firstly the impartiality of the tribunal could be called into question due to its inclusion of Jack’s ex-girlfriend. Secondly, the conduct of the tribunal itself, particularly the fact that a member of the panel was falling asleep during Jackâ₠¬â„¢s submission, suggests Jack would have a valid claim for breach of his rights. In this scenario, then, Jack would be able to establish grounds for his claim for judicial review. The tribunal is exercising a quasi-judicial function, and would be properly categorised as a public law function. As such, judicial review is the proper way to proceed to challenge its decisions. In terms of actual grounds for review, Jack’s best chances lie with the composition of the panel. The inclusion of his ex-girlfriend, despite the panel’s claim to the contrary, could be seen to have an adverse effect on the impartiality of the panel. Again, the falling asleep of one of the panel’s members during Jack’s presentation also gives ground for judicial review due to procedural impropriety. It seems the panel has acted within its rights to deny legal representation to Jack. Nor is this legal representation guaranteed under human rights legislation, as this is clearly a civil matter, while the ECHR only guarantees legal representation in criminal cases. Again , in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998, Jack’s best chances of mounting a strong case for breach of his rights lies in the composition of the panel and the conduct of the hearing. These seem to have constituted potential breaches of Article 6 of the ECHR. BIBLIOGRAPHY Statutes Civil Procedure Rules 1999 European Convention on Human Rights Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 Human Rights Act 1998 Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 Cases Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] 3 All ER 752 Cocks v Thanet District Council [1983] 2 AC 286 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 Langborger v Sweden (1989) O’reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237 Pett v Greyhound Racing Association [1969] 1 QB 125 Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 R v Board of Visitors of HM Prison, the Maze, ex p Hone [1988] AC 379 R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Trader’s Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418 R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 2 All ER 853 R v Gough [1993] AC 646 R v Legal Aid Board, ex p Donn Co [1996] 3 All ER 1 R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc [1987] QB 815 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 Ringeisen v Austria (1971) Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee [1992] 1 AC 624 Sramek v Austria (1984) Secondary sources Gomien, D. (2005) Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg: Council of Europe) Leyland, P., and Woods, T. (2002) Textbook on Administrative Law, 4th Edition (Oxford: OUP) Parpworth, N. (2004) Constitutional and Administrative Law, 3rd Edition (London: LexisNexis) Footnotes [1] See, for example, Parpworth, N. (2004) Constitutional and Administrative Law, 3rd Edition (London: LexisNexis), p264 [2] Quoted in Parpworth, p270 [3] Quoted ibid, p309 [4] European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1) [5] Ibid, Article 6(3)(c) [6] Ibid, Article 6(1) [7] Quoted in Gomien, D. (2005) Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg: Council of Europe), p56