ECHR: There is an inherent obligation on a state to use special measures, safeguards to protect children from ill-treatment

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Ireland had been negligent in failing to protect Louise O'Keeffe from abuse in school in 1973.

The case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights after the Supreme Court ruled that the State was not liable because the school was run by the Catholic Church.

The Court held, by eleven to six with Judge Peter Charlton fully dissenting, that the structure of primary education in 1970s Ireland failed to protect Ms. O'Keeffe from abuse.

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3, prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment, and Article 13, the right to an effective remedy, of the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 3 in respect of the investigation into the compliments of sexual abuse at the school.

The Court also found that complaints made under Article 8, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 did not establish any matters separate to the matters already examined.

The Court found that the State had an inherent obligation to use special measures and safeguards to protect children, especially those in primary education, from ill-treatment.

Delegating the obligation to protect children from ill-treatment does not absolute a state from that obligation.

The Court found Ireland failed to meet this obligation:

[...] which had to have been of the sexual abuse of children by adults prior to the 1970s through, among other things, its prosecution of such crimes at a significant rate [...]

Despite this, the State continued to allow the management of primary school education for the majority of children to national schools, without any mechanism of control against the risks of sexual abuse occurring.

The Court also found that Ms. O'Keeffe was entitled to choose from the legal remedies available, rejecting the Supreme Court judgment that Ms. O'Keeffe should fail for not exhausting all available legal remedies in Ireland first.

ECHR: No breach of right to fair trial in granting state officials immunity from civil torture proceedings

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that four British nationals cannot sue Saudi Arabia through British courts for compensation.

In a majority six to one judgment, the Court held that it is:

[...] satisfied that the grant of immunity to the state officials in the present case reflected generally recognised rules of public international law.  

The Court observed that in granting:

[...] immunity to the state officials in the applicants’ civil cases did not therefore amount to an unjustified restriction on the applicant’s access to a court. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 of the convention in this case. However, in light of the developments currently under way in this area of public international law, this is a matter which needs to be kept under review.

The case highlights the distinction between criminal and civil cases of torture. Criminal cases of torture can be heard in the United Kingdom even if the offences have been committed in another country. But civil cases of torture, where the torture was committed abroad, British courts will not consider.

In the only dissenting opinion, Bulgarian Judge, Zdravka Kaladjieva expressed his:

[f]ear that the views expressed by the majority on a question examined by this court for the first time not only extend state immunity to named officials without proper distinction or justification, but give the impression of also being capable of extending impunity for acts of torture globally. 

The Court acknowledged their medical examinations carried out after the men returned to the United Kingdom concluded that the applicant’s injuries were consistent with torture.