Newsletter of the Venice Commission - autumn
2011 |
In this issue:
|
|
OCTOBER 2011 plenary session |
All decisions of the October plenary
- adopted opinions on inter alia following issues:
- was informed on follow-up to the opinions on o the Draft Law on languages in Ukraine; o the new Constitution of Hungary; o the draft law on amendments to the law on election of councillors and members of Parliament of Montenegro (jointly with the OSCE/ODIHR); - was informed o by Dr Yahia El-Gamal, former Deputy Prime Minister of Egypt, on the reform process taking place in that country and by Mr Farouk Sultan, President of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, on the Conference on constitutional drafting to be organised with the Supreme Constitutional Court in January 2012 ; o on recent constitutional developments in Morocco, in Romania and in Tunisia; o on the Conference on the rule of law to be jointly organised with the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and to be held in March 2012 in the framework of the United Kingdom Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers; |
Selected opinions
It is an established principle that legislation regulating fundamental rights such as the right to genuine and free elections should be adopted openly, following public debate, and with broad support in order to ensure confidence and trust in electoral processes. However, during the meetings with the representatives of some political parties and civil society in Kyiv in September 2011, the delegation of the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR was informed that the initial phase of work on the project lacked transparency and inclusiveness. The draft law concerns only
the elections for parliament in Ukraine. It, therefore, does not meet the
Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 1755
(Paragraph 7.1.1) of 10 October 2010 and the OSCE/ODIHR and Venice
Commission long-standing recommendation that all electoral rules should be
codified in a single Election Code to ensure that uniform procedures are
applied to all elections. |
Basing itself on the Guidelines
for Peaceful Assembly jointly adopted by the Commission with the
OSCE/ODIHR (2nd edition, 2010), the Commission in both opinions stresses
two main ideas. Firstly, the right to peaceful
assembly should not be interpreted restrictively and any restrictions
should be construed narrowly, and that in general, rights must be
“practical and effective” not “theoretical or illusory”. Secondly, the
effective guarantee of the right to freedom of assembly depends on the
manner in which the legislation is implemented. The presumption in favour
of assemblies will need to become a part of the legal culture and
influence the use by the executive authorities and by the law-enforcement
agencies of the discretionary powers which the amendments confer upon
them. | |
The Venice Commission points out that the way in which the national legislation enshrines freedom of association and its practical application by the authorities reveals the state of the democracy of the country concerned. Consequently, any restriction of this right must meet strict tests of justification. It is protected under Article 22 of the ICCPR and Article 11 of the ECHR. | |
The case before the
Constitutional Court of Peru concerns the qualification of crimes against
humanity and statutory limitations, as in the specific case, it is
discussed whether it is possible to prosecute those crimes taking into
account that domestic legislation establishes limitations to prosecution.
Three questions were asked to the
Commission: b.
How have crimes against humanity been defined and
established? |
|
FORTHCOMING... |
Opinions
|
Studies Electoral issues
Democratic institutions and fundamental rights
|
Contact us |
Unsubscribe |