EU Charter Death penalty footnote

[Gadfly]

Does this Protocol require ratification by all member states? Has this happened if yes?

Protocol 13 bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including for crimes committed in times of war and imminent threat of war.

No derogation or reservation is allowed to Protocol No. 13.

It entered into force in 2003. The only EU member states not to have ratified it are Latvia, Poland and Spain, though they have all signed the protocol.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Co...M=8&DF=&CL=ENG

[Son_Of_The_Republic]

Interesting recent interview with Professor Schachtschneider:

EU Death Penalty | www.ParteiderVernunft.eu

[ibis]

The EU would have been justified in executing the leaders of the 1916 Rising, according to the Lisbon Treaty. This is my reading of the highlighted article C.

Can someone on the 'Yes' side tell me I'm reading this wrong?

Sure. The COFR article is a copy of the relevant article in the ECHR, to which Ireland is a signatory. There's two levels of abolishment of the death penalty - Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR (afair). The former abolishes the death penalty except in time of war, the latter abolishes it totally. We, like nearly every other EU member state, are signatories to Article 13, which abolishes the death penalty even in time of war. One EU country (Latvia), however, currently retains the death penalty in time of war, and because the EU cannot go further than its member states (otherwise it would be creating a conflict) it has had to limit itself to the weaker Article 6.

The EU is the probably the single most important promoter of abolition of the death penalty worldwide - the abolition of the death penalty in civil use is a precondition of membership, and a regular part of trade deals with non-EU countries. Even the websites of its Delegations to the US and Singapore contain overt criticism of those countries' use of the death penalty. The EU annoyed the Bush administration by tabling it as discussion item.

Frankly, there's a lot of people on here talking out their holes.

[IvoShandor]

Frankly, there's a lot of people on here talking out their holes.

Theres a lot of people here who should be wearing jackets with extremely long sleeves.

[The Field Marshal]

*wonders does Dick Roche know where I live*

Yes Norman adventurer on- the- make Dick Roche, and his European henchmen, has you firmly sighted in their crossbows.

Be afraid,be very afraid.

[Wheely217]

No doubt this issue has already been thrashed out here but I'm new so be gentle.

Is there any credability to the claim that the EU Charter footnotes on article 2 of the Charter correspond to the decisions of the mentioned article of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950) and the supplementary protocol which states:

a) Article 2 passage 2 ECHR 1950:
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

* (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
* (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained;
* (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.


There is an article here on this matter:

Judicial Background for Re-introduction of Death Penalty in the EU Euro-med

You are pathetic. Why dont you return to our conversation last night as to why Article 352 makes the Treaty self-amending. Oh yeah cos you cant. Go on you keep spreading lies and I'll keep exposing them. Protocol 13. Read it if you can.

[Wheely217]

Interesting recent interview with Professor Schachtschneider:

EU Death Penalty | www.ParteiderVernunft.eu

Jesus, didn't think it was possible to overestimate you but it was. The preceding post actually directs you towards Protocol 13 and you just ignore it. Interesting interview-on an anti-EU website, with a biased interviewer asking leading questions to a legal academic widely known to oppose the EU. Your sources are just top-notch you useless muppet.

Some examples of this unbiased interviewers questions

"But will it now be unequivocal, that the killing of human beings is allowed, once the Treaty comes to effect?"

"Isn’t it the normal case that in times of war deserters are being executed?"

"More frightening is, that without a law and without a court order killings are allowed during uprisings and civil commotion. Who defines that?"

"*So, they enable themselves to gun down the populace?"

"all of which can be interpreted as civil commotion. This sounds like dictatorial *circumstances."

Pathetic. I notice youre legal academic makes no mention of Protocol 13 whatsoever. Imagine my surprise.

[Mitsui]

Imagine my surprise.

Really? I'm not surprised at all