Human Rights, Coursework Example
Section A: Compulsory Problem Question
Whether Tamsin Can Commence With Proceedings
Tamsin can commence with proceedings as per the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act’s significance is to enable individuals to seek justice in U.K. courts in case of violation. For instance, Tamsin complains that the manager’s behaviour at the crematorium was disrespectful. As per the Human Rights Act 1998, organisations are compelled to treat the public with dignity and respect. This implies that the Local Authority Council (LAC) must maintain fairness and dignity in the Human Rights Act 1998’s context. Irrefutably, Tamsin, and Bert’s extended family cannot pay their respects due to LAC’s requirements. LAC provided that a maximum of 15 individuals were allowed to attend the crematorium. Still, the extended family was not allowed to sing despite Grace’s will that provided that a hymn would be sung in her funeral. According to (Pugh, 2020, p.2), the government’s extension of emergency powers during the COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns on rights’ violations. LAC’s provisions serve as constraints hindering Tamsin and Bert’s extended family from exercising their freedoms as per the Human Rights Act 1998.
Tamsin can pursue court proceedings in case of human rights breach at the crematorium. Tamsin will seek justice as per the Opus v. Turkey case whereby European Conventions were used to solve complaints on rights’ abuse. Murphy (2018, p.1347) stresses that the Opus v. Turkey case brought out an issue of interfering with individuals’ rights in a democratic society. In the case’s context, Tamsin can refer to the court’s proceedings to seek justice. The crematorium’s manager did not provide a public health funeral for Grace without hindering the extended family from exercising its rights. The manager was intended to treat the extended family with dignity regardless of the COVID-19 provisions for maintaining public health. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 indicates that it is an organisation’s statutory duty to observe individuals’ rights. Since LAC owns the crematorium, it was its duty to ensure that the manager protects the extended family’s rights. The manager was to maintain flexibility and appropriately arrange for the burial or cremation. Spano (2018, p.474) proclaims that the court’s function is to secure rights. The manager’s flexibility would ensure that the funeral would be carefully and respectfully delivered to eliminate complaints that might be communicated by the extended family.
Tamsin can also commence with proceedings as the crematorium’s manager prevented her from comforting Bert during the funeral proceedings. In this case, Tamsin is a victim, and the court’s argument in the Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd  case will be useful to seek justice. Green (2017, p.25) indicates that the Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd  case has been referred to in court proceedings to ensure that individuals’ rights are safeguarded. In Tamsin’s case, the court will look beyond the crematorium’s happenings to determine whether there was the Human Rights Act 1998’s violation. Indeed, the Human Rights Act 1998 allows victims to launch complaints against a public authority. Tamsin’s and Bert’s rights were violated when the crematorium’s manager disallowed them comforting each other during Grace’s funeral. The court’s approach will focus on the victim’s rights to establish whether LAC’s provisions led to violations. Wolfsteller (2020, p.2) advocates for the observance of civil rights. Proper analysis of Tamsin’s situation will enable the court to develop logical approaches to solve the case compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Stopping of the funeral service by the manager is another factor that might necessitate Tamsin to pursue court proceedings against LAC. According to the Human Rights Act 1998, remedies are provided to victims whose rights are violated. The manager obstructed Tamsin and the rest of the extended family members from exercising their rights. In case Tamsin successfully launches litigation against LAC, there is a higher likelihood that a remedy will be forthcoming. The remedy will be provided if the court establishes that Tamsin’s case is compelling. The court will focus on the instant case’s particulars, interpret the Human Rights Act 1998, and ensure that justice is delivered. Justice will be delivered to the victims after the court establishes a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. Thereby, Tamsin should commence with court proceedings to seek justice if LAC’s provisions enabled the crematorium’s manager to breach the extended family’s rights.
Applicable Convention Rights
In case Tamsin pursues court proceedings against LAC and the crematorium’s manager, different conventional rights will be applicable. The first one is the right to respect family life. The crematorium’s manager did not discharge duties while respecting family life. Loveland (2016, p.51) indicates that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that the family life must remain respected regardless of the circumstance. The court will be compelled to establish judgment against LAC’s provisions as they led to Article 8’s violation. The extended family is allowed to grieve, and LAC is supposed to observe individuals’ rights while conducting a public health funeral. However, the manager violated Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 by disrespecting family life. The crematorium’s manager did not ensure that the public health funeral arrangements were respectfully delivered. Thereby, the right to respect family life will be applicable if Tamsin pursues court proceedings against LAC.
Another convention right that will be applicable in Tamsin’s case is the right to experience unique grief. Although the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated LAC to adopt new provisions for public health funeral’s conduction, the extended family’s rights were to be respected while grieving for Grace. As per the Human Rights Act 1998, mourners can experience their unique grief as this is a fundamental human right. Irrefutably, people grieve in different ways. For instance, Bert broke down when a hymn was played during the funeral, but the rest of the extended family members did not. This indicates that the mourners during Grace’s funeral had their unique ways to grief. However, the crematorium’s manager disallowed the mourners to express their feelings. As per the Human Rights Act 1998, the manager infringed the mourners’ right to experience unique grief by enforcing LAC’s provisions. The manager was not supposed to instruct Bert on expressing his feelings during Grace’s funeral.
The third convention right is the right to move towards one’s grief to seek healing. During the grieving process, individuals find it challenging to cope with the loss of loved ones. For instance, Bert was emotionally suffering due to Grace’s death. However, the crematorium’s manager prevented Bert from moving towards his grief to seek healing. According to the Human Rights Act 1998, violation of individuals’ rights leads to court proceedings against the perpetrators. The crematorium’s manager is the perpetrator that hindered Bert from grieving and seeking healing. Since loved ones’ death leads to profound sadness, Bert and other extended family members can grieve and seek recovery as per the Human Rights Act 1998. The crematorium’s manager’s Act to prevent Bert from expressing his intense grief is a violation of his rights. Thereby, the right to move towards one’s grief to seek healing will be applicable if Tamsin pursues a lawsuit.
Lastly, the right to feel multitudes of emotions is applicable in case Tamsin files a lawsuit. Bert, Tamsin, and the rest of the extended family members had varied emotions. In the context of the Human Rights Act 1998, individuals are allowed to express unexpected emotions. The significance of expressing emotions is to overcome grief and cope with the loss. However, the crematorium’s manager hindered Bert from exercising the right to feel multitudes of emotions. For instance, the manager disrupted the service and instructed Tamsin to return to her seat and stop comforting Bert. The manager’s reluctance to commence the funeral proceedings hindered the mourners from expressing their rights. For instance, Bert was disallowed from exercising the right to feel multitudes of emotions due to Grace’s death. According to Leijten (2018, p.1910), the U.K. courts listen to complaints to deliver justified case conclusions. The service’s disruptions and Tamsin’s and Bert’s oppression by the manager’s actions obstructed them from grieving Grace’s death.
Remedies Available for Tamsin
In the U.K., the Human Rights Act 1998 led to remedies for convention rights violations that can be accessed by Tamsin. For example, individuals’ protection is a constitutional remedy provided to victims of convention rights’ violation. Tamsin’s situation is an example of a violation case since LAC’s funeral policies violated their rights. Although the crematorium’s manager enforced actions due to LAC’s provisions, Tamnsin’s and the extended family’s rights were violated as per the Human Rights Act 1998. Tamsin is entitled to protection under the constitutional statuses as a remedy to prevent further violation of the extended family’s rights. During the protection period, judicial officers are allowed to investigate the parties involved to establish the allegation’s validity. Legislation’s violation leads to the restraining of the perpetrators. Penalties are enforced when there is a violation of convention rights violation, ensuring that Tamsin access justice for the offences committed during Grace’s funeral.
Another remedy available for Tamsin is the court system, whose leading role is to resolve disputes in the Convention rights violation scope. In a liberal democracy, fundamental human rights are protected against violation. Since the U.K. is a liberal democracy, the crematorium’s manager hindered Tamsin from exercising her rights despite the existence of individual freedoms as per the Human Rights Act 1998. The manager is the perpetrator of human rights violations and is entitled to a fair trial as per the U.K.’s court system. U.K.’s democracy is genuine as the government and its branches recognise that fundamental rights must be protected against violation. Thereby, the court system will interpret Tamsin’s human rights issue to establish a rights violation and penalise the perpetrators. Jay (2017, p.843) maintains that the Human Rights Act 1998 protects individuals’ rights by specifying freedoms imposed by public authorities and observed by individuals.
The European Court of Human Rights, located at Strasbourg, is also an available remedy if Tamsin fails to get justice in the U.K. courts. The Strasbourg court’s judgments are observed by courts to safeguard individuals’ rights in the U.K. and Europe. The court follows the U.K.’s legislation to enhance civil liberties’ protection. For instance, the court intervenes in case of discriminatory practices leading to rights’ violation. The Strasbourg court interprets the law as per the British traditions to establish a breach of fundamental rights. Tamsin’s case involves rights’ violation, thereby making it ideal to be interpreted by the court. The Strasbourg court’s judgments are binding if it is discovered that there was a breach of fundamental rights. Thereby, Tamsin should pursue proceedings in the Strasbourg court, which will intervene and provide remedies to ensure that fundamental rights are protected from the violation.
The last remedy available for Tamsin is a common law, one of the U.K. parliament’s remedies, for protecting convention rights. According to Amos (2017, p.764), the U.K. parliament imposes critical legal constraints on public authorities that disregard individuals’ rights. For instance, the Equality Act 2010 hinders discriminatory practices that might be observed by public authorities. In this case, the Equality Act 2010 serves as an extra legal rights protection’s source that supports Human Rights Act 1998’s roles in cases involving violation of individuals’ freedoms. Undeniably, legal rights protection’s scope in the U.K. is robust to ensure that the public authorities observe individuals’ rights. Thereby, LAC’s funeral procedures due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not account for individuals’ rights. Tamsin’s rights are protected within the common law’s frameworks. The U.K. common law embraces human rights’ values to enhance human rights’ protection.
Section B: Compulsory Essay Question
The Human Rights Act 1998 has tremendously changed the U.K.’s legal system by ensuring that domestic courts must recognise fundamental human rights to prevent violations. Before its application in courts, the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) was transformed into domestic law. Human Rights Act 1998 has ensured that victims that have been subjected to rights’ violation are protected. In case of a breach of individuals’ rights, the complainants must file their cases in the U.K. courts. According to the Human Rights Act 1998, the court’s role is to account for charges on rights violations to ensure that freedoms are safeguarded against breaches. The court also ensures that public authorities that disregard the Human Rights Act 1998 are punished to ensure that citizens are treated with dignity (Schnetzer, 2020, p.13). The domestic courts in the U.K. have interpreted the country’s legislation to ensure that convention rights’ breach is prevented.
The U.K. government has remained proactive to create a societal balance and protect individuals’ rights. For example, the government ensures that protocols are followed by public authorities to respect individuals’ freedoms. As per Article 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, rights are absolute, limited, or qualified. Greene (2017, p.1) indicates that the U.K. criminal justice has enforced the country’s legislation. The three categories have been observed as part of the U.K. legislation and accounted for during court proceedings. It is an elementary obligation of the public authorities to protect individuals’ rights, and in case of violations, complainants should file cases in domestic courts. Respect and dignity are fundamental values that must be observed by public authorities when dealing with individuals’ concerns. Individuals residing in the U.K. are protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 (Gerards, and Brems, 2017, p.17). For instance, the homeless, citizens, and refugees are some of the groups whose rights are safeguarded.
In developing human rights’ reforms in the U.K., the Strasbourg jurisprudence is accounted for in domestic courts’ proceedings. The Strasbourg case law is observed by the U.K.’s domestic courts (Fan, 2016, p.38). However, the domestic courts can reject the case law when there are valid reasons to depart from the ECHR decisions. For instance, R v Horncastle case is one of the cases whereby the U.K. Supreme Court disregarded the ECHR decisions. In the U.K., subordinate courts might, at times, provide judgments that are inconsistent to the Strasbourg court’s argument. In this case, the subordinate courts are bound by the precedent system to observe a higher court’s decision, such as the Supreme Court. As per Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, subordinate courts such as the municipal courts interpret the U.K. legislation and provide a decision compatible with the ECHR. Provision of judgments that are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 is to ensure that there is no breach of individuals’ rights.
In the C-89/17 Banger v United Kingdom  case, the court established that British nationals’ rights should not be breeched. As per the Human Rights Act 1998, the government should not pass laws that will lead to conventional rights’ violations. Other groups required to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 include local authorities, public prosecutors, and institutions such as schools and hospitals. Various articles of the Human Rights Act 1998 have listed individuals’ rights to create awareness and prevent violations. For instance, Article 2 provides that individuals have the right to life. In this case, the Act’s violators are punished under the U.K. legislation prohibiting ending individuals’ lives. Public authorities are mandated under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to protect individuals subjected to danger. Article 2 also provides that legal actions should be taken in case individuals’ lives are threatened. Law enforcers are required to come to victims’ aid and prevent further violation of convention rights.
The issue of rights’ protection has also been covered in the Robinson v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police  UKSC 4 case. In the case, the Supreme Court referred to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which provides that arrested individuals have a fair trial right. According to Wright (2017, p.6), individuals can access court systems in the U.K. and are entitled to a fair hearing. U.K. legislation provides for the availability of an impartial court or tribunal to listen to criminal or civil matters and provide judgments. Rights violation is a criminal offence under the Human Rights Act 1998. Violators access a fair trial whereby the court determines the penalties depending on the violation’s nature. Article 6 corresponds with Article 7 that provides that perpetrators of rights violations are punished under the U.K. law. Article 7’s significance is to ensure that penalties are provided depending on the offence. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides that individuals should not be given a heavier penalty than the stipulated one in the U.K. legislation. Thereby, Article 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides provisions for the arrest and conviction of individuals’ rights or freedoms.
Article 8 has also been critical in safeguarding individuals’ rights in the U.K. According to Article 8, individuals residing in the U.K. have the right to private and family life. The U.K. legislation provides that public authorities should respect individuals’ rights (Loveland, 2016, p.52). The law’s provisions have hindered public authorities from interfering with private or family life. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides that the right to family life entails relationships, appearances or sexual orientations. Individuals are allowed to establish secure family relations under Article 8. Article 9 also provided that individuals have the freedom of religion without state interference on religious and non-religious beliefs. The U.K. legislation allows individuals to choose and change their beliefs. For instance, clothing or symbols can be adopted depending on individuals’ religious or non-religious beliefs. However, authorities can prevent the public from wearing their religious clothing after demonstrating valid reasons and justifying claims to deter individuals from pursuing the right to religion.
Besides, the U.K.’s domestic human rights law has been applied in domestic cases to prevent the rights’ violation. For instance, the Lee v Ashers Baking Co. Ltd  UKSC 49 was solved through the U.K. domestic law. Under the U.K. domestic human rights law, discriminative behaviours such as torture or threats are curbed. Shellum (2017, p.2) maintains that individuals in the U.K. are entitled to freedoms and treatment with dignity by the public authorities. For instance, the right to life has been observed in the U.K. to enhance individuals’ well-being through peaceful co-existence. Human life’s aspects have been sustained by the domestic human rights law to guarantee individuals’ survival and promote their well-being. Protection of individuals’ rights from violations has enabled individuals to make progress without interference (Von Staden, 2018, p.28). The legal systems of Wales, England, and Scotland, have promoted the U.K.’s domestic human rights law to enforce individuals’ rights and freedoms.
Incorporating human rights in the Human Rights Act 1998 has enabled the U.K. to take a tough stand against violations of individuals’ freedoms. For instance, the E.S. v Austria (2018) case was solved under the domestic human rights law. This is because the British people are entitled to liberty and are protected under the law. The inhabitants of Ireland, Wales, and Britain have achieved lawful judgment as the U.K. has consistently observed the Human Rights Act 1998. According to the U.K. domestic human rights law, there are instances whereby individuals can be deprived of their right to liberty. For example, convicted and detained individuals are some of the groups whose rights are limited. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides that convicted and detained individuals should be offered validated reasons why they cannot exercise some of their rights. Fenwick (2017, p.2) maintains that the U.K. government has enhanced measures to enhance the adherence of human rights norms.
The constitutional significance of human rights is to protect citizens. The Human Rights Act 1998’s ratification and observance in the U.K. is an indication that obligations set in the convention have been achieved (Chaney, 2020, p.2). For instance, individuals are respected and fairly treated as the Human Rights Act 1998 gave the European Court an authority to ensure that the U.K. fulfilled its obligations to the British. The U.K. courts have addressed disputes involving rights violations. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the court system’s role is to ascertain a rights violation. Victims whose rights have been infringed are allowed to file their complaints in the U.K. domestic courts. In case the filed case in the U.K. court is admissible, victims of rights violation are compensated under the U.K. domestic human rights law. According to Burlington (2017, p.81), a constitutional framework in the U.K. has helped promote individuals’ rights.
The U.K.’s courts have interpreted various domestic cases under the Human Rights Act 1998. For instance, Google Inc v Vidal-Hall and others  is a case involving the violation of internet users’ rights (Schroers and Tsormpatzoudi, 2015, p.254). The dilemma raised in the case was whether internet users were to pursue justice due to access of their browsing activity by third users. The Google Inc v Vidal-Hall and others  case was interpreted under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Supreme Court interpreted the Act to establish whether internet users were entitled to compensation in case their browsing activity was accessed by third parties. According to the Data Protection Act 1998, Google had violated internet users’ rights. Google served as a data controller but failed to protect individuals’ privacy and prevent unauthorised parties from accessing internet users’ browsing history (Richardson, 2015, p.23). The Supreme Court concluded that Google was to compensate the internet users under Section 13of the Date Protection Act.
Another domestic case involving rights violation is the Liberty & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Ors . This domestic case is considered a historic decision as it involved Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR (Woods, 2017, p.247). Edward Snowden was the perpetrator that violated the Human Rights Act 1998. The investigatory powers tribunal assessed the case’s facts to establish the Act’s violation. One of the violations found by the tribunal is the interference of private communications by the U.S. government. The U.S. government collected information communicated by the U.K. citizens before sharing it with the British government. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the U.K. and the U.S. governments had breached individuals’ rights by accessing critical information. The U.K. government violated the public’s rights by intercepting communications (Hu, 2015, p.1679). The investigatory powers tribunal established a breach of Article 8 and 10 by the U.K. government.
The third domestic case is the Re Y (A Minor: Wardship)  case. A local authority filed the case, and it involved Y’s migration from the U.K.’s jurisdiction to a different state (McEleavy, 2015, p.376). As per the case’s facts, Y had been raised in a British family. However, Y’s brothers had waged Jihad in Syria, leading to their death. The local authority filed the case in the U.K. court to hinder Y’s migration to Syria. The local authority argued that Y’s restriction to migrate was a protective measure to enhance his well-being. As per the High Court’s interpretation of the U.K. legislation in the Re Y (A Minor: Wardship)  case, children were disallowed from leaving their jurisdiction. Y was a minor, and the High Court ensured that he was prevented from moving to Syria and protected under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. Fenton-Glynn (2015, p.83) maintains that The High Court’s decision was based on vulnerability assessment to ensure that Y’s rights were protected under the U.K. legislation.
The fourth case is the Evans v H.M. Attorney General  case. This case was interpreted by the U.K.’s Supreme Court to establish whether communication between Prince Charles and the government ministers would be made public (McCullagh, 2015, p.1). The case involved freedom of information and the Supreme Court had to determine the constitutional conventions about the Monarch’s behaviour. The Supreme Court would also establish the connection between parliamentary sovereignty and the U.K. rule of law. Due to the nature of the Evans v H.M. Attorney General  case, most constitutional lawyers guaranteed that the case would be listened to by the court under the constitutional law. As per Section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act, the Supreme Court’s decision was challenged by Evans (Shugerman, 2018, p.1965). Therefore, the Supreme Court had concluded that there would be a judicial review in the Evans v H.M. Attorney General  case as established by the U.K.’s attorney general.
To sum up, British nationals’ rights are safeguarded under the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, minimum standards have been set to be followed by public authorities. Various domestic cases in the U.K. were analysed to establish how the Human Rights Act 1998 has safeguarded British nationals’ rights. A key deduction from the analysed cases is that the U.K.’s domestic courts have remained proactive in ensuring that individuals’ rights are respected. Thereby, the U.K. courts have helped reduce rights violation’s incidences by ensuring that perpetrators that infringe rights are punished under the U.K. legislation. Observance of the Human Rights Act 1998 has helped eliminate individuals’ unlawful detention, ensuring public authorities uphold the U.K.’s fundamental rights. Therefore, the U.K.’s domestic courts have secured fundamental rights by punishing perpetrators of rights’ violation.
Amos, M., 2017. The value of the European court of human rights to the United Kingdom. European Journal of International Law, 28(3), pp.763-785.
Burlington, M., 2017. The role of Northern Ireland legislation in the protection of the Human Rights Act. N. Ir. Legal Q., 68, p.81.
Chaney, P., 2020. Human rights and social welfare pathologies: civil society perspectives on contemporary practice across U.K. jurisdictions–critical analysis of third cycle UPR data. The International Journal of Human Rights, pp.1-36.
Fan, B.J., 2016. Convergence, Compatibility or Decoration: The Luxembourg Court’s References to Strasbourg Case Law in Its Final Judgments. Pecs J. Int’l & Eur. L., p.38.
Fenwick, H.M., 2017. Terrorism and the control orders/TPIMs saga: a vindication of the Human Rights Act or a manifestation of defensive democracy’. Public law. (October), pp.609-626.
Fenton-Glynn, C., 2015. The Regulation and Recognition of Surrogacy under English Law: An Overview of the Case-Law. Child & Fam. L.Q., 27, p.83.
Gerards, J., and Brems, E. eds., 2017. Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases. Cambridge University Press.
Green, S., 2017. Fairchild and the Single Agent Criterion. Law Quarterly Review, 133.
Greene, A., 2017. The Human Rights Act in a Culture of Control. The Future of Human Rights in the U.K. (Cambridge Scholars Press, 2017).
Hu, M., 2015. Taxonomy of the Snowden disclosures. Wash. & Lee, L. Rev., 72, p.1679.
Jay, Z., 2017. Keeping rights at home: British conceptions of rights and compliance with the European Court of Human Rights. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(4), pp.842-860.
Leijten, I., 2018. Core socio-economic rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
Loveland, I., 2016. Survivorship and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Journal of Housing Law, 19(3), pp.51-56.
McCullagh, K., 2015. A tangled web of access to information: reflections on R (on the application of Evans) and another v Her Majesty’s Attorney General. European Journal of Current Legal Interests, 21(2).
McEleavy, P., 2015. The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising Return or Reflection. Netherlands International Law Review, 62(3), pp.365-405.
Murphy, S., 2018. Domestic Violence as Sex Discrimination: Ten Years since the Seminal European Court of Human Rights Decision in Opuz v. Turkey. NYUJ Int’l L. & Pol., 51, p.1347.
Pugh, J., 2020. The United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act, deprivations of liberty, and the right to liberty and security of the person. Journal of Law and the Biosciences.
Richardson, M., 2015. The Battle for Rights–Getting Data Protection Cases to Court. Oslo Law Review, 2(01), pp.23-35.
Schnetzer, L., 2020. Queensland’s Human Rights Act: Perhaps not such a great step forward. Alternative Law Journal, 45(1), pp.12-17.
Shellum, A., 2017. The Case for a Human Rights Act Based Approach to Unfair Dismissals Engaging Convention Rights: Challenging Judicial Attitudes and Assessing Potential. LSE Law Review, 2, pp.1-22.
Schroers, J. and Tsormpatzoudi, P., 2015, August. Identity-Theft Through e-Government Services–Government to Pay the Bill?. In IFIP International Summer School on Privacy and Identity Management (pp. 253-264). Springer, Cham.
Shugerman, J.H., 2018. Professionals, Politicos, and Crony Attorneys General: A Historical Sketch of the U.S. Attorney General as a Case for Structural Independence. Fordham L. Rev., 87, p.1965.
Spano, R., 2018. The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review, and the Rule of Law. Human Rights Law Review, 18(3), pp.473-494.
Von Staden, A., 2018. Strategies of Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights: Rational Choice Within Normative Constraints. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wolfsteller, R., 2020. Out of sync: The failed translation of international human rights in the creation of the U.K. Human Rights Act. Journal of Human Rights, pp.1-19.
Woods, L., 2017. Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT): Privacy International v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Ors. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev., 3, p.247.
Wright, J., 2017. Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Time is precious
don’t waste it!